Yesterday the Vanguard ran two separated but really related articles – the first expressed commentary on a new contract for DCEA (Davis City Employees Association). The second was commentary on a new proposed school parcel tax.
In a lot of ways, both the district and the city face the same challenge. This community is accustomed to a high quality of life. We have great schools, a great downtown, great greenbelts, great bike paths, great neighborhoods. But at the same time, we no longer are able to sustain funding to maintain those great assets.
On the city side of things, we have a roughly $8 to $10 million deficit of sorts. In June we attempted to shore that up with a new parcel tax for roads, but it only received 57 percent of the vote.
For the past decade or so, the city has survived by treading water, eating deferred maintenance costs, but in need of new sources of revenue. We had held the line on employee salaries until the last round of MOUs, which culminated last week with the agreement with DCEA. More importantly, the city has held costs in line by limiting new hires – meaning that the city continues to operate around 100 FTE (full-time equivalent) below its high point.
But again, without new revenue, it is hard to see this as sustainable. The city leaders failed to make the case to the voters for the roads tax and the vote came up short of the two-thirds needed for passage. It is easy to argue that putting two measures on the ballot concurrently was a mistake, as it was going for a two-thirds vote rather than a majority vote. That could be remedied in 
2020, but more likely 2022.
Long term, we still believe that we need new sources of revenue from economic development. There have been some positive occurrences on that front. The voters passed measures to increase the city’s TOT (transient occupancy tax) take and to take taxes from recreational cannabis. That figures to pay off when two new hotels are built, and five physical stores and four mobile dispensaries open.
Still, this is only a small stopgap – what we need is full-scale economic development (see today’s other commentary).
In a way, I am more concerned about the schools than the city. The voters have been willing to support school district endeavors, with one exception, at between 69 and 73 percent support. One of the parcel taxes in 2012 passed with just 67 percent, but the most recent parcel tax in 2016 hit 70 percent, while the most recent school bond hit 72 percent a couple weeks ago.
However, that measure covers only about one-third of the now crumbling school infrastructure. In the meantime, we are struggling to maintain instructional funding to pay for both programs and teachers. We are looking at yet another $300 parcel tax (about what we were advocating back in 2016).
In short, we have a great school district but we are also in deep trouble and many in this community do not yet realize it
In many ways, the teacher compensation gap is the canary in the coal mine – we have seen the data and heard the heartbreaking stories on the compensation gap, but at the bottom line we are now conflicted between long-term ability both to provide great programs and competitively compensate our great teachers.
Furthermore, we are facing declining enrollment, likely due to the high cost of housing.
We have structural deficits as well. Lack of funding through LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula), decreased possibility of parcel taxes in the future – right up against the bubble, as polling showed that we might be reaching the end to our expansion of the parcel tax, and at the very least we need to engage the community in the future to be able to expand.
As Alan Fernandes put it on Thursday, “In embarking on a year long study session, I for one have become pretty resolute that in order to meaningfully close the compensation gap once and for all, do it with some degree of ‘nowness’ because this is an issue that we need to start working on now.”
He made it clear: “We need a local source of revenue.” Mr. Fernandes said that relying on the state is “never going to allow us as a district to catch up, particularly in light of the way LCFF is structured.”
Finally, while the school bond helps, we need an estimated $450 million and it provides just $150 million of that. We have aging facilities, and we need to upgrade our technology – the schools are still designed as though this were the 20th century, build in the 1960s.
Over the last six months I have argued that the challenges we face in our schools mirror the problems that we face in this community. We are facing a very real crisis of quality of life in this 
community on all fronts.
We struggle because we put schools and city resources into separate single silos. We have a tendency to view issues of our schools in one silo and issues of the city in another silo. Many people who do not have kids in schools do not necessarily follow the district that closely.
Schools may be the key to the quality of life in this community. However, housing is its lifeblood. Without the ability to build and maintain all levels of affordable housing, this community is not going to resemble the one we have right now.
In a lot of ways, Davis built its greatness on the 1972 General Plan which looked forward to create a network of parks, bike paths, and greenbelts. But our lack of continued vision and a general failure to invest could lead to our downfall.
Our great community is no longer so great. Oh sure, we have bike paths, parks and greenbelts. But, increasingly, we cannot afford to maintain them. We lack the tax revenue to keep up with other communities.
Something has to change here. We cannot maintain this community with the resources that we currently have.
The question for the community as we head to 2019 is how and where do we get the resources to maintain the great levels of services, amenities and schools in Davis. This is a crisis that is building and it will not go away without leadership and vision.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
We have resources, but to access them it costs money. Charge people more and more for access and they have less interest in paying to maintain or improve things for others.
Not sure what you mean by “access”…
But, the line,
resonates… easier to “sell” donations to a cause, if demonstrable self-interest is involved… some will give resources to a ‘charity’ out of altruism… others, only if they perceive direct or indirect ‘value’ to themselves or ‘theirs’… others, if they think/believe the resources they give are a moral/social ‘obligation’ beyond themselves and theirs’… some are willing to donate funds while ‘voluntary’, and yet will resist (sometimes strongly) ‘obligations’ to do so, if being ‘forced’ by others [I’m in that class].
Some already give to causes/purposes when not “required”… others do not. It’s easy for someone not giving to ’causes’, to support forcing others to ‘give’ to “their” priorities… and, even more, when they can exempt themselves from the levy.
A tough nut to crack… when you have to rely on a vote…
There is nothing stopping folk from donating funds to DJUSD for any purpose, including ‘ear-marking’ for specific ones… or to the City, for that matter… part of the problem is ‘forcing’ others to… particularly if they can exempt themselves…
With a city increasingly comprised of young college-age adults and old retirees, the condition of the school district is merely an abstract concern to them if it is a concern at all. Demographics of Davis don’t bode well for the finances of the district in the long run. The school district may need to shrink infrastructure and budgets to match declining enrollment.
I agree, Don.
School districts serve communities, not the other-way around.
As a side note – approval of the megadorms, Nishi, and WDAAC are reflections of the point you made.
Ron, you wrote “School districts serve communities, not the other-way around.”
School districts are the source of our collective future well being. They don’t “serve” us–the district IS us. We should be putting our collective resources into building up our collective well being. We’d be foolish to think that schools are just another commodity that we can choose to buy or not.
Richard: The point is that school districts should meet the needs of its population. And, when that population changes, school districts must adjust to reflect that change.
As a side note, one of the schools that some immediate family members attended was closed by the time I reached that age. It was ultimately converted to housing. (I understand that the Grande housing development in Davis is also on land that was sold by the school district.)
Part of what makes that trickier than you think Ron is that part of meeting the needs of its population is to be able to properly fund it.
David: Since Davis is “importing” students from other communities (whose families don’t pay the parcel tax), it appears that the Davis school district is over-sized, compared to the actual need.
The danger here is that some are engaging in a futile attempt to “adjust” the community to meet the school district’s “needs”, instead of the other-way around.
Perhaps those concerns should have been raised in regard to the exclusionary nature of megadorms, Nishi, and WDAAC. (But, that might have been futile, as well.) Bottom line is that the demographics of the population have been changing, and so are its needs.
It’s resourced advantaged by the addition of the students. Most of those students btw, are people whose parents work in Davis. So I’m not sure I would call it “importing.”
See also my response to Sharla…
You also point out the other nuance… students… here for 4-5 years, voting for financial obligations where they may not pay at all, but others will, for years… that’s why when I was a student @ UCD, I did not vote locally… voted where my childhood home was… on bonds, etc., I did not feel I had the right to dictate to others… another type of a 1%-er, as it were…
“old retirees” can exempt themselves, so that isn’t inherently a problem… but, I believe that ‘representation without taxation’, IS a concern…
Don
I don’t dispute your comment. I do find it ironic that retirees, especially those who raised their children here, see supporting the schools as an “abstract concern”. Are they not aware that the public schools they sent their children to were taxpayer supported? Are we really a society of “I’ve got mine so to hell with everyone else?” Because it is certainly feeling that way.
As for the students, do many of them not realize that their own education has been and is taxpayer supported?
Don Shor wrote “With a city increasingly comprised of young college-age adults and old retirees, the condition of the school district is merely an abstract concern to them if it is a concern at all. Demographics of Davis don’t bode well for the finances of the district in the long run.”
Yes, and the most recent two projects approved under Measure R specifically addressed students (Nishi) and seniors (WDAAC). These had nothing to do with the “primary internal housing need” that Measure R is supposed to address, defined in City planning documents as workforce housing (including families): https://davisvanguard.org/2018/09/guest-commentary-internal-housing-needs-davis/
You do realize that some students are indeed part of the workforce, and some are indeed, forming their families?
As a UCD student, was not part of the local workforce (did that in my home town)… I came damn close to starting a family when I was a student, but my ‘conservative’ nature and that of my girlfriend, put off the marriage/family thing until we had degrees and jobs to support a family… knew many student folk, 40+ years ago, who chose to work locally and start a family while still UCD students. They struggled, but all these years later, have very few regrets…
Rik keeps repeating his assertion and in so doing ignoring the 2013-2021 Housing Element update which clearly accounts for both senior and student housing in its needs assessment.
No surprise there…
You would think that free public schools means that participation is free. Participation in school is costly. Participation in extra curricular activities will break the bank. Then ask for taxes to be paid to support programs out of reach financially for families and there is a growing reluctance. Add in the increasing portion of the population that can opt out or pay little and the reluctance will increase.
And yet, when given the opportunity, “we” vote to approve a large 350-unit housing development designed explicitly to exclude families with children on the highly suspect theory that it will free up larger, more expensive homes, which will be purchased by those young families. What’s the opposite of smart growth?
I’m not sure why the approval of WDAAC has any impact this issue.
Seriously? You note the declining enrollment, likely due to the high cost of housing. WDAAC is new, relatively affordable housing that could meet the needs of many families with children but, instead, excludes them. It was an opportunity lost.
That’s your narrative. It’s also the narrative that did not prevail in the election. We’ll have to see what the impact ends up being, that’s why I said, I’m not sure why the approval of WDAAC has any impact on this issue.
It’s been explained multiple times (by several different commenters), and should be painfully obvious to you at this point, as well. Same with the other exclusionary housing.
But again, it might simply be too difficult to try to “force” the community to change its demographics, to meet the desires of the school district. I’m sure you’ll keep trying, though. (While failing to acknowledge the impact of exclusionary housing.)
The “good news” is that kids grow up fast, and will have already started their careers well-before you’re able to change the community to meet your personal preferences.
There’s plenty of land right next to the WDAAC site for more housing, if that’s what the community wants.
The community presumably got what it wants (or at least what developers determined it wants)–which, apparently, is not housing that will help with declining school district enrollment.
Maybe someone will now proposed a conventional housing development next to WDAAC. I wonder how many of the WDAAC opponents would support that.
I certainly would, if it is well-designed to meet priority housing needs. If there is such a proposal, I predict there will be major opposition from residents of the new WDAAC, concerned with traffic impacts, noise, over-concentration, etc.
Of course the WDAAC approval is related to this issue. It was a telling moment in the campaign when Dan Carson cited stats showing a large increase in the senior population (all of whom, of course, found housing in Davis or “aged in place”) as evidence that we needed to provide even more high-end expensive senior housing. This completely neglects the family/workforce housing that is not being provided and which is identified as the primary housing need in the City’s planning documents.
Eric Gelber: you have nailed it exactly.
If the proposal includes puppies, I’m sure they will. Puppies are cute.
“This completely neglects the family/workforce housing that is not being provided and which is identified as the primary housing need in the City’s planning documents.“
Student housing is identified as a key housing need in more recent documents as is senior housing. We are not going to solve housing needs by limiting housing. That’s just non-sensical.
No one is arguing for limiting housing. The issue is making the right housing choices.
Agreed Eric. Adding yet another layer of irony to the situation. I think this plays into the comments many have made about not having a comprehensive city plan. It leaves us dependent upon the developers to decide our priorities for us which I see as decidedly weak in prioritization since ( factually, not demonizing) they have a major profit interest in deciding what kind of project “we need”.
Tia: I agree. Developers set the agenda and priorities based on maximizing return, and citizens are left in reactive mode.
I also think one unintended consequence of Measure R is that the City does not give projects the scrutiny they would otherwise, and effectively punts key decisions to the voters.
I have heard this complaint from a number of quarters, but I don’t think it’s accurate. I have seen the lead up process for numerous projects both Measure R and non-Measure R, they are fairly similar. Ask Tia and Alan Miller if the city really gave that much more scrutiny to Trackside than WDAAC – I just don’t see it.
For just one example: look back in the record at the lack of discussion and scrutiny for the WDAAC project’s “Affordable Housing Plan.” It didn’t even meet the basic requirements for required contents.
Look also at the City being caught totally off-guard by the fair housing lawsuit. The City did not do its due diligence there and instead apparently relied on two substandard “legal opinions” delivered by the project proponents.
How is that really any different from the process at Trackside where the city has been sued on violating their own design guidelines. You can point to specifics in the WDAAC because you followed the process more carefully, but in terms of overall scrutiny, I don’t see much difference in terms of council actions. Cannery would never have passed a Measure R vote had it gone to the voters as another example.
The fact that the process applied to WDAAC was fairly similar to the scrutiny given to Trackside proves Rik’s point rather than rebuts it. Compared to WDAAC, Trackside is a minuscule undertaking, with far less community-wide impact and implications. I do believe far greater scrutiny would have been given to the issues raised with WDAAC had the Council had the final say, given the nature and scope of the proposal and its significance to the City’s overall priorities and needs.
As David states, I am much more familiar with the WDAAC project. Eric: that’s a good point if Trackside had the same level (lack of) of scrutiny applied as the much larger WDAAC project.
It could be that I am mistaken and the City’s review process is just not very good for any type of project, whether Measure R or not…but it still seems to me that the City did not do adequate due diligence and review on a number of WDAAC issues. And I think it is clearly human nature that if the buck doesn’t stop at one’s desk, one is much more likely to just pass things down the line to wherever it does stop.
David Greenwald said . . . “In June we attempted to shore that up with a new parcel tax for roads, but it only received 57 percent of the vote.”
As Phil Coleman clearly stated yesterday the “attempt” was half-hearted at best.
A united and mobilized Council would have certainly helped sell the need for a supplemental funding measure prior to a public vote. Several talking points could have been raised in support. The Finance Department could have prepared cost/revenue projections if directed to do so.
Phil hit the nail squarely on the head. His 4 “No’s” bear repeating
— No robust complaint,
— No door-to-door canvassing
— No making the case about the $8 to $10 million shortfall
— No city leadership and initiative.
There was no city leadership and initiative. They received in return exactly what they invested in their “attempt”, nothing.
Matt: as I said yesterday, i agree.
Okay, two days in a row so, yeah, I am going to respond to this. I do not agree. I spoke over 10 times in the 2 years before this tax came to the ballot about the needs. These talks were done with community groups, including the Rotaties and Chamber (several times) and the Progressive Business Exchange. Ostensibly these are made up of the leaders of our community. I spoke in detail about the condition of road using all City reports. I spelled it out. Further, we developed a fiscal model (Leland) that laid out in very clear terms the need. I wrote no fewer than 5 articles for the Enterprise and VG on the need and/or the Leland model.
To say there was no leadership on the issue is to ignore these efforts.
True, none of us went door to door. We have full time jobs and full time city work and we cannot use City money for campaigning. So, should we take the money out of our pockets? Is that the leadership you are looking for? We were at the Market each week but there is only so much we can do with the time we have.
After speaking, writing, and meeting individually with various leaders around the community (including a group of apartment owners) to lay out the need, I am not sure what else we should have done. Where was the “leadership” from business groups or property owners who would benefit from these investments? So, I disagree with Phil, I disagree with Matt, and I disagree with David.
As you said, no one walked door to door and as you know better than most, that’s what is needed. I wouldn’t personalize the lack of leadership here, I would simply say if the proponents of the project had run a campaign for the tax, it probably would have passed.
There were no proponents. The majority of citizens voted for it. That is insufficient in CA. Who was supposed to have run the campaign? City Staff cannot. City Council has limited bandwidth (as I argued). There was limited opposition that willfully misinformed the community (shocking as that sounds). That was the campaign.
I feel genuinely bad that I did not do more, but that is not accepting the argument that we did nothing.
Again – I’m not trying to put the blame on you personally. But when the city held the water election in 2013, there was a campaign. Will Arnold was hired to manage it. That type of effort was needed with this tax.
Robb… will further this off-line… but will affirm all you said, except for your ‘regrets’… cannot say one way or the other…your judgement, alone… my advice is, “not your problem, let it go” as to how you feel…
Robb, I respect your right to disagree, and I wholeheartedly agree that the communioty/City should not ride on the personal time and funds of the individual Council members. Where you and I differ is in your statement “we cannot use City money for campaigning.” To explore the veracity of that statement let’s perform a side-by-side comparison of the City’s efforts during the period leading up to the Measure I water vote in March 2013. The City approached that issue much the same way that it is currently approaching the Downtown Plan Update process. Av considerable number of well-planned, well-publicized and well-attended community meetings were held in various locations around the City. That pre-election education process was preceded by the thorough multi-month Water Advisory Committee process, all of which was funded by the City, organized by City employees and senior managers, and attended by multiple Water Advisory Committee members, as well as City employees and City senior managers.
Water was actually an easier, and less complex, educational subject than transportation (roads and bikeways and greenbelt surfaces). The law does not forbid educational efforts targeted at raising the transportation quality, delivery and infrastructure knowledge level of citizens, residents and businesses any more than it forbids educational efforts targeted at raising the water quality, delivery and infrastructure knowledge level of citizens, residents and businesses.
The City chose to be educationally proactive leading up to Measure I. The City has chosent to be educationally proactive leading up to the adoption of the Downtown Plan Update. The City chose to not take those concerted efforts with respect to transportation in 2017 and the first half of 2018.
Ad Hoc efforts by individuals like the ones you have described yourself doing are both noble and deserve our thanks, but they do not have the educational impact that either the Water or the Downtown Plan efforts have. And i can’t argue strongly enough that an educated voter is much more likely to cast her/his vote wisely than an uneducated voter.
In closing, here is a multi-part question for you … (Part 1) Approximately what proportion of the 39,000 registered Davis voters can give an accurate answer to the question “What is the Leland Fiscal Model?” (Part 2) Of the people who can affirmatively answer that first question, “What proportion can give an informed description of the Leland Model’s broad purpose and contents?” (Part 3) Of the people who can affirmatively answer that second question, “What proportion can give an informed description of how the Leland Model lays out in very clear terms the transportation need?”
I like looking for evidence of cognitive dissonance, double-standards and hypocrisy as it generally identifies hidden agendas and also often lack of rational considerations. And both are ripe targets for debate. However, these are my triggers and I am easily irritated when I note them and my tone generally reflects it.
And related to this…
We are an 80% liberal town and rides on a high-horse of claimed tolerance, diversity, etc… yet we continue to demonstrate much less tolerance and much less diversity than almost any other comparable city with our standard development policies… and then hit it with the consequences of increased taxes and fees to pay for what we need. We claim to be the most educated, but we continue to make stupid decisions and demonstrate ignorance in charting a course keeping our city healthy and vibrant. We claim to be people of togetherness and civil cooperation and yet we divide into warring camps and spew rancid propaganda at each other to gin of voter fear in a competitive kerfuffle to achieve only binary win or lose.
I believe I am justified in being irritated with the people in this town. From the inside looking in, it is embarrassing. From the outside looking in, it is disgusting.
We are on a perpetual cycle of pleading for more handouts from a shrinking population of qualified tax-payers to pay more. Meanwhile the town grows more congested and shabby from lack of vision, lack of leadership and lack of pragmatic support for the changes that we need.
If Davis was a company it would long ago have gone out of business and shut its doors if not for the soft money of UCD keeping it alive.
Seriously Jeff, you do more harm than good with this stuff.
I appreciate that. I really do.
But my sense of things after having debated these things on the VG for the last 10 years is that the thing that is broken is the paradigm of electorate. In fact, I see great dysfunction that continues today after years of softer persuasion attempts.
How do you fix a broken paradigm? How do you clear up dysfunction?
It is impossible to do this while also attempting to prop up the afflicted as being qualified in their opinions and behaviors. Or if there is some more supportive and sensitive path to correction, life is too short to give everyone a trophy to make them feel special while they continue to come in last place every season.
I am going away at the end of the year. So those upset with my directness can look forward to a new year where they can get back to feeling righteous in their wrongness.
Jeff: The “truth” is that some would like to use a “portion” of your conservative arguments (related to development), and claim them as “progressive”.
I’ve seen this with more than one commenter (including David, at times).
And, some apparently wish that you’d not make the “other” conservative arguments, for fear that you’d weaken that claim. (In fact, they probably wish you’d just go away, at this point. However, I don’t share that view.)
I appreciate that. I really do.
But my sense of things after having debated these things on the VG for the last 10 years is that the thing that is broken is the paradigm of electorate. In fact, I see great dysfunction that continues today after years of softer persuasion attempts.
How do you fix a broken paradigm? How do you clear up dysfunction?
It is impossible to do this while also attempting to prop up the afflicted as being qualified in their opinions and behaviors. Or if there is some more supportive and sensitive path to correction, life is too short to give everyone a trophy to make them feel special while they continue to come in last place every season.
I am going away at the end of the year. So those upset with my directness can look forward to a new year where they can get back to feeling righteous in their wrongness.
Agreed, same here.
Somewhat disagree… may be definition of terms… am thinking 30% are die-cast ‘liberals’ (particularly related to other people’s money/beliefs), 5% die-cast conservatives, and the rest “moderates”… some who tend social liberal, some who are social conservative, some financial liberal, some financial conservative… my genes(?), behavior, is tending social liberal (just don’t tell me what I should “celebrate”), and tend to be financially conservative…
Until both major parties get that, we’ll tend toward gridlock… and in CA, at least, both will continue to lose affiliation by voters… the Repubicans accelerated that, when unlike Democrats, they barred NPP folk from voting in primaries… I had to briefly register Republican to vote for Kasich in the primary… neither Trump nor Clinton was palatable… as soon as that fiasco played out, re-registered as NPP… 3 months out of 48 years, being a registered Republican… the rest was Democrat or NPP, and NPP is about 30 years of that… still am NPP…
Liberal vs conservative is trite… and does not reflect majority views… most are both, but in different areas… social vs. financial/economic…
Liberal vs conservative works from a perspective of a fundamental dichotomy of ideological preference, values and morality. Read Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind.
Idon’t like the term “progressive” because I know people that claim it yet combat change except for a narrow and small list of things they champion. And I am more a fiscal conservative libertarian and with slight center-right views on social issues, but I am largely progressive in my interests and values.
I think liberal and conservative covers most of the ground well enough.
It is interesting to me though that liberal people seem to not like being called it; while conservatives don’t have a problem being called “conservative”. Why is that?
I think for the most part we all agree on the big “what’s”, but greatly differ on the “how” and “why”. There should be enough common ground for civil dialog, but we have the my-way-or-the-highway line in the sand… so it becomes a fight.
Yes there are flavors of both, and individuals can agree or disagree across the party platform of issues and ideas. But, like it or not we have become tribal in this respect.
“From the inside looking in, it is embarrassing. From the outside looking in, it is disgusting.”
Do you believe that you are uniquely capable of seeing the situation from both the inside and the outside? You seem to believe that the city should work as a “business” without noting that according to the SBA 30% of new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 50% during the first five years and 66% during the first 10. By that standard, it looks as though the city is holding its own.
Name one thing that this city does well.
Low crime
Not really. Davis has a lot of property crime.
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/davis/crime
Trees and parks. Ok, that’s two things.
Trees yes. Parks… in terms of square miles of useful parks and open space per capita… not so much. And the parks are looking more shabby every day.
I’ll swing at that question…
When you turn on your faucet, does potable water come out? Do you have good water for washing, showers?
When you flush your toilet, does excrement go ‘bye-bye’? Do your other drains (shower, sinks, etc.) work (on the City side)?
How often is your property flooded (even when we had intense rains)? Have to replace carpets, drywall much, due to flood damage?
Have you ever had significant damage/loss, due to fire, theft?
Is your house/dwelling falling down due to shoddy construction?
Given finance constraints, are your sidewalks and streets passable?
Ok Howard. Does this city do these things well, or just average?
I think just average.
But there are a lot of things that we do here less well than average.
But the water is good now… I will certainly give you that. Maybe that is one thing we do better now. We are sure paying for it.
It’s like several of our close friends have a terminal disease:
Anonymousness
And all they have to do to keep from dying is have the courage to stand up for their convictions — in public, in the light of day.
Naked to the World.
Uh… not connecting the dots here.
What difference would it make? If Craig Ross does not like what I write as Jeff M, well then Frankly, he will not like what I write as Frank Lee or Jeff (fill in the blank with whatever my real full name is) because it would be exactly the same.
Connect the dots? . . . ricocheting dots firing eternally off the walls of the echo chamber, unrestrained and unquestioned, eventually consuming the participants in self-made hell masquerading as paradise.
Poor timing of pun not intended I am sure.
I think that there is a broken expectation from some that those that post with their actual name are going to be less disagreeable, or somehow more civil in their disagreement. They are wrong… both because people that post and gonna’ post their opinion, and people that cannot discern opinion disagreement from incivility are going to continue the same.
Then there are others than know exactly what they want… to unmask those ideological blasphemers so that they can sick the mob on them. Eliminating anonymous posting is a win-win for these people…. either they get the stuff to fuel the mob, or they silence the nonbelievers. And they are correct.
Would only be intended if I capitalized the “p”.
I really doubt there’s a mob.
I do agree that the most obnoxious posters are the ones that are passive-aggressive rather than outwardly aggressive.
It’s like the reverse of Howard Stern. After that movie about him, people thought maybe he’s not such a jerk, he’s just a nice guy with a jerk public facade. But then as time went on people began to realize that more likely he outwardly appears to be a jerk who is really a nice guy who is actually deeper down a total arsehole.
How many levels down does the Rabbit Hole go?
I will take direct any day. And honesty too.
But I don’t doubt there is a mob.
Tell Maroon Five that there is no mob threatening them for planing to perform during the Super Bowl. This is relatively new stuff.
Oh, there’s a mob. I was referring to the Davis mob. I think you can handle them, Frank Lee.