“Clustered living, whether in a rural village, small town, or city, can offer many advantages, ecological, social and otherwise. I’m not against it at all. Most people don’t especially want to live in remote rural areas, don’t have any intention to, and never will. The reality is that most folks are choosing between urban settings and suburban settings, not between urban settings and remote rural settings.”
May I assume that you agree with all of that? If so, perhaps you can recognize how much effort has been wasted over the past decade by those who have seemed oddly obsessed with creating greater obstacles to the relatively small number of people who wish to live in rural areas, while meanwhile the vast majority of new homes built in the county have actually been the very sort of “American Dream” suburban cul-de-sac homes you see on your cable channel — mostly in McKinleyville, Cutten/Ridgewood, the outskirts of Eureka and Arcata, and in the Fortuna area. While the self-styled Smart Growthers have been busy making themselves the opponents of homesteaders and other rural smallholders, and wearing themselves down and losing credibility battling the phantom menace of “massive conversion of rural resource lands to residential subdivisions,” the trend towards suburban sprawl that both rural residents and Smart Growthers dislike has rolled merrily along its sprawly path.
To be fair, there is no easy answer to the problem that you correctly identify as a cultural one, where most home buyers choosing between denser urban settings and the more sprawled out suburban settings you see on your cable TV real estate channel have been opting for the suburban options. To a significant extent this is due to the perception (not an entirely inaccurate perception, unfortunately) that crime and blight and lack of affordable housing and family-friendly neighborhood facilities have made the in-town options less attractive to many. But when even the great local champion of “Smart Growth,” Mark Lovelace, chooses not to live in a dense smart-growth “cluster” characterized by mixed residential and commerical uses, a mix of single family and multi-family housing, and so on — but instead chooses a typical suburban home, in a typical single-family suburban cul-de-sac neighborhood at the very edge of the suburbs in Sunny Brae, across from a golf course and at the edge of the redwood forest — it’s clear that the attractions of living in that kind of setting are a deeply-embedded part of the mainstream American view of what counts as nice, safe, pleasant surroundings in which to raise one’s family.
While it may be convenient to place the blame on cable TV real estate channels, greedy developers, Rush Limbaugh, and other external forces, the less comfortable truth is that when it comes to the preference for suburban living, the phrase “we have met the enemy, and they are us” really comes into play. I wish I had an easy answer for this, or that I believed that the wave of a magical planning pen will change people’s preferences, but I don’t. I tend to think that the best hope lies in creative initiatives to improve our urban residential neighborhoods, schools and family-friendly facilities to make the in-town options more attractive — for instance the exemplary work being done by the Jefferson School project in Eureka.
Morning TOA.
ReplyDeleteMy muses did not arrive this a.m. I do want to apologize for my irrational fear of sock-puppets and seeing TOA shadows everywhere. When I read the discussion in the celebration thread right now, I would kinda like more TOA shadows out there (except the JW kind).
It's not approaching the discussion in good faith, but it's the reality of life in the comment zone and I'm still trying to deal with it. So I appreciate this forum where we don't have to aggravate the hillmuffin's and several others who have mentioned their annoyance with the longer posts that characterize both of our writings.
Here is my goal. To work through some of the arguments and narratives that we have discussed so far that I think are fascinating, especially since I think we share a fairly broad perspective on politics. I would like to get to a place where we debate the Guiding Principles. I'm not there yet, I'd like to get some of these other straw-men, etc out of the way - but that is the goal.
I'll start with a simple one from your post yesterday. I think the Mark Lovelace jab goes to the second level of arguments. It is the "Al Gore" argument that I'm pretty sure you are aware of if you take in any right wing media. I agree whole heartedly with their point - Al Gore has a huge carbon footprint from what we know of his private life - and I guess it is fair game in the sphere of politics - but while it is an effective gotcha tactic it has nothing to do with policy.
Case in point. Where can Mark Lovelace or I buy a new home to live with a small carbon footprint? I choose Eureka - I used to live one mile from work. Using the language of the free-marketer - people who want to live with a small carbon footprint have no choice. They are forced to choose from a selection of homes that are built with short term profits of land owners and developers and on the current reality on the ground.
Let me give you an example. There was a huge parcel of land that is just being developed about a block off of Central in McKinleyville. This would have been an ideal place to place nice higher-density homes that one could market as the Prius or Sunfrost class of new home. (Sunfrost is a local ultra effecient refrigerator manufacturer) Of course developer's and the property owner's are not going to take this route. Not because they are evil, there is just no incentive. Go with what you know and where an established market exists.
So... in a nutshell, government should play a roll in creating an incentive or preventing certain types of development. This is an argument that will entail a more fluid understanding of property rights. It is an argument where you have to accept and increase government's right to zone and regulate. This is anathema of course to the argument coming from the libertarian wing of the Republican or conservative Party/movement. As a Democrat, I believe in a strong governmental role in regulation et. al. to help guide society to where we want to go. This is a difficult argument to make in today's society.
So extrapolating the argument out for now...yes, I would vote for a nominal Republican like Clendenen over a Democrat with a strong base in the libertarian Tea Party every time. I think the process related to the G.P. has borne that out.
Having gotten that out of the way... Here is my response to your post above point by point.
We agree on clustered living. We are going to have to have strong regulations to insure we get it I believe. I don't see anything in the new Guiding Principles (GP) that moves us in that direction.
ReplyDelete"The reality is that most folks are choosing between urban settings and suburban settings, not between urban settings and remote rural settings."
(BTW how do you convert to italic in the comment zone without first typing the passage in other software?)
I think this is a false choice for the reasons I gave in my what I guess is an opening statement. There is no option for clustered living except for Eureka which many families don't chose for other reasons such as the homeless, etc.
As far as I understand our laws. If we allow a few people to be able to split or add another home to their property, we have to allow everyone to do this, right? You know the 14th amendment that Forest Queen doesn't like - due process, equal and all that? It's a big problem legally and is probably at the heart of why some legal tricks have to be played. Unfortunately I need to read more to know where we've been on all things GPU, but I do understand that policy is by necessity expressed in the realm of law. In this realm the concepts and regulations are abstract and therefore often unfortunately often do not make much common sense to a layperson like myself.
I don't want to be against homesteaders with their heart and knowledge in the right place - but who am I to judge who is going to build and live with an eye to the future and who is going to build to cash out on weed? I refer you to that moment during the last meeting when Resource Land Working Guy was arguing against at least 3 of the Supervisors (Rex probably agreed with him I think, I can't remember where Estelle stood) about being able to subdivide his 360 acre property. I like what I understood of the legal language. You are free to split you property as as long as you show improvement or something. Obviously this is near to impossible given Resouce Working Guy's reaction which I think is a true - probably almost impossible to be an improvement if you split the land.
While the self-styled Smart Growthers have been busy making themselves the opponents of homesteaders and other rural smallholders, and wearing themselves down and losing credibility battling the phantom menace of “massive conversion of rural resource lands to residential subdivisions,” the trend towards suburban sprawl that both rural residents and Smart Growthers dislike has rolled merrily along its sprawly path.
This portion is not helpful. I don't know where the quote is from. I could argue against it, but it would probably be arguing for arguing's sake. You would have to approach this with a more neutral tone.
"Self-styled Smart Growther." True, but necessary. I want to distinguish myself from a non-growther. That is a straw man to me. It may be that this is where progressives like myself were coming from in the past - if so, it was wrong. I'm going to guess that it was less of the former and more of an effective political ploy. I don't know another term for my position as pro-regional planning. I spoke to Virgina Bass and Linda Atkins over the 4th and 5th and both reacted negatively to my description of smart growth. Linda suggested infill (which I will not use - infill is to close to landfill) - Whatever.
Break
To a significant extent this is due to the perception (not an entirely inaccurate perception, unfortunately) that crime and blight and lack of affordable housing and family-friendly neighborhood facilities have made the in-town options less attractive to many.
ReplyDeleteAgree – better description of my point above re. Eureka. And then back to the Supervisor Lovelace point. I find this sort of personalization of politics unfortunate. It's true to some extent. It's partially why I fault George W.'s militaristic take on the foreign policy for example - hypocracy. Fine, Mr. President, who did what now when it was your turn to serve?
I just don't think it's helpful to go there – (especially for a Democrat????). It goes back to the 1% agrument I made before. I get it, whe should be given more options, then maybe more of us can be Ed Beagley Jr.
“we have met the enemy, and they are us” I think this is a fundamentally conservative notion. Conservative's believe that we human's are fundamentally evil and we need to rise above (for lack of better term – SBB isn't around is she?) Liberal's believe in human nature and believe that most of us will do the right thing given the right circumstances. That is my point about advertising et. al. I believe your quote is true today in regards specifically to regional planning. I think we can change it by changing our culture step by step. It's a big challange – but it needs to be done.
So I guess the muses did show up after all.
I've been reading some of your post June 17th post's to try to catch up. Here's my impression of your posts in a nutshell
ReplyDelete"concern troll
January 27, 2011 Urban Word of the Day
A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.
A concern troll on a progressive blog might write, "I don't think it's wise to say things like that because you might get in trouble with the government." Or, "This controversy is making your side look disorganized."
Here is a great quote that illustrates your tone...
"Or are you going to dissipate your energies in more shotgun blasts of broad-based doomsaying and cynicism that may fill your hard-core True Believers with the thrills of righteous indignation, but which leave a good deal of the rest of your potential supporters quivering in despair and apathy, while at the same time turning off moderates who see little relationship between all the sky-is-falling rhetoric, and the reality on the ground?"
This is like shadow boxing. You and Longwind are not conservatives, you are just interested in doing what is best long run for given the situation on the ground. Our Democrats on the board are Democrats, not Republicans. There are no opponents here, it's just the sky is falling crowd vs. the reasonable folks. I'm starting to agree with you too actually. I am a socialist radical after all. Damn you and your even tone and your persuasive ways.
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I'm currently scrambling to catch up on some work that just can't wait (being my own boss gives me a lot of latitude to procrastinate, but at times things get busy and I just have to bear down and get stuff done) and I'm not able to give your replies the time they deserve -- but I should be able to do so soon, hopefully within a couple of days, certainly within the week. Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten, and that I appreciate the time you've put into this.
ReplyDeleteOh, as far as how to generate italics (and boldface, and blockquotes), here's a good explanation. It's pretty simple:
ReplyDeletehttp://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/about-comments/
Thanks, no hurry, I'm still way behind and have lots of catching up to do on your old posts.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to get to your post where you talk about Supervisor Lovelace also having to recuse himself. I haven't gotten their yet to pull quotes, but let me make my rebuttal anyway.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a difference. To be trite it is the we vs me money I plugged in my comment on SP today. It's the difference between social welfare and not. I think there is a legitimate - and conservative I might add in as much as it reduces the need for Government - need for social welfare NGO's in society focused on social welfare. The definition of this would get extremely political, but as a purported democrat or progressive or whatever, we may be able to agree. The difference is why don't think I'm being hypocritical when I would want Supervisor Fennell to recuse herself, but would not expect Mark to. Its simple - profit v non-profit, we v me.
That's why this whole IRS thing has had me upset. Did you ever happen to catch Lawrence ODonnell on this? He was Awesome. He brought up the point that in statute, let me see if I can get this right, it says that the organizations that get the 501 (c) 3 tax break must be exclusively social welfare organizations. In the fifties sometime someone (executive or legislative - I forget - I think it was the IRS) changed the application of this statue to mean primarily social welfare - ie 51%. That is why I'm guessing that our local Tea Party and Sunshine for Humboldt probably get to count themselves as 501c(3) organizations.
Come say hi if you go to the meeting today or do you watch them from afar? J
"Case in point. Where can Mark Lovelace or I buy a new home to live with a small carbon footprint? I choose Eureka - I used to live one mile from work. Using the language of the free-marketer - people who want to live with a small carbon footprint have no choice. They are forced to choose from a selection of homes that are built with short term profits of land owners and developers and
Deleteon the current reality on the ground."
Sorry, but I think that's just kind of a cop-out. Do you seriously think that Mark Lovelace could not have found a home closer to the center of Arcata, or in Eureka, or Fortuna, or even within walking distance of shopping and whatnot on Central Ave in McKinleyville? That he searched and searched, for something closer in town, but the only houses on the market at that time were just like the one he ended up buying out at the edge of the suburbs -- a single family suburban home, in a single-family suburban neighborhood? Sorry, that just strains credulity, and your own choice of a home in Eureka contradicts your claim of lack of choices.
If there was lots of demand for more clustered housing, for more multi-family homes and so on, and little demand for single-family, suburban-sized homes and lots, then prices for densely clustered and multi-family homes would go up and they'd sell immediately, and prices for the single-family, suburban-sized homes and lots would go down and they'd be sitting around unable to be sold. If that was the case, developers would be clamoring to build more of the kinds of clustered housing that people were bidding up, and none of them would want to build the kinds of suburban homes that fewer and fewer people wanted and they couldn't sell. If they could buy 10 acres and put 80 clustered condos and houses up and sell them all to enthusiastic buyers, they could make a lot more money than taking 10 acres and building 5 homes on 2 acre lots. But the reality is that most home prospective home buyers are not going to realtors clamoring for tightly-packed condos and homes on tiny lots, they're going to realtors looking for homes like Mark bought, in the suburbs, with space and privacy and all the rest. That's what I meant by "we have met the enemy, and they are us."
Which is not to say that there's NO demand for multi-family homes and smaller homes. But a good deal of that demand is not from people who could afford either living arrangement but personally would prefer the more tightly-clustered setting, it's from people who would love to have more space, but can't afford it, and therefore will settle for less than they'd like, as long as it's "good
Deleteenough." There are, of course, exceptions, but the overall trend seems pretty clear.
Meanwhile, due to growing income inequality, those with lots and lots of disposable income are going for the McMansions with three-car-garages on Diamond Drive in the outskirts of Arcata, or in the gated community between the golf course and Jacoby Creek Rd., or in similar settings in Cutten, Ridgewood, the outskirts of McKinleyville and Fortuna, etc.. The problem, therefore is multi-fold: (1) Both middle and upper-middle class folks are mostly looking for single-family suburban housing in typical suburban neighborhoods, and as they are the ones with money to spend, they are mainly the ones developers are building for, and (2) Many of those who are willing to "settle for" more densely-packed housing are looking to "trade up" for less densely-packed housing as soon as they are able to afford it.
In both cases, the issue is that most people want for their families at least the level of suburban setting that Lovelace wanted, not that they want more densely-packed settings and are only settling for more suburban settings because that's all they can find. The evidence is in the home prices -- even nice, well-kept homes in pleasant but relatively densely-packed neighborhoods in Arcata, Eureka, Fortuna, etc., tend to sell for less than the same type of house out at the edge of the suburbs. If many more people wanted those well-kept-but-densely-packed homes inside our cities, the prices for those homes would be spiking and they'd be selling as soon as they hit the market, while the price for similar homes out in the sprawling suburbs would be sagging and they'd be sitting on the market unsold for long periods of time. But that's just not the case. All of which suggests to me that it's much less a case of developers leading home-buyers to single-family homes suburbs, and more a case of home-buyers leading developers to build single-family homes in the suburbs.
"Sorry, but I think that's just kind of a cop-out. Do you seriously think that Mark Lovelace could not have found a home closer to the center of Arcata, or in Eureka, or Fortuna, or even within walking distance of shopping and whatnot on Central Ave in McKinleyville?" "
DeleteYes. I'm not going to force any individual to move anywhere. I'm talking about markets - choice. To get the kind of clustering I'm talking about is going to be difficult. That development off off 299 is a great example of clustering and density, but that is all. The homes are obiously low rent and location, location, location. Who wants to live between two population centers looking at a freeway.
I know I'm making your point here. People with money would rather live in the homes you describe in the next paragraph. This is where we hit the boundary between the free market - what people want - and reality - what kind of future development is best for our region going forward.
While we are at a still relatively nascent growth pattern, shouldn't we be taking steps to be creative? This means yes, being highly regulative of new development and forcing developers to be creative. Something like - ok, for every acre you develop on new ground you have to develop or improve (increase density) current residential land? Don't quote me on that I'm not a professional. But something. My solution - more people like S. Lovelace on the board (knowledge) and more people on the planning commission with degrees in regional planning.
" (1) Both middle and upper-middle class folks are mostly looking for single-family suburban housing in typical suburban neighborhoods, and as they are the ones with money to spend, they are mainly the ones developers are building for, "
Agreed. I think a slight shift in our culture can change this. Being from the Bay Area, I know that the reverse is true. The only reason the outskirts are growing is the interior is too expensive. I think this can be changed by investing in Eureka, and well, the much more difficult items like changing the advertising/culture.
"2) Many of those who are willing to "settle for" more densely-packed housing are looking to "trade up" for less densely-packed housing as soon as they are able to afford it."
Probably? Well if they are living on that 299 development, I'd agree. If they live in a nice old home in Arcata or Eureka, I'm guessing many like it there.
"In both cases, the issue is that most people want for their families at least the level of suburban setting that Lovelace wanted, not that they want more densely-packed settings and are only settling for more suburban settings because that's all they can find.The evidence is in the home prices -- even nice, well-kept homes in pleasant but relatively densely-packed neighborhoods in Arcata, Eureka, Fortuna, etc., tend to sell for less than the same type of house out at the edge of the suburbs. If many more people wanted those well-kept-but-densely-packed homes inside our cities, the prices for those homes would be spiking and they'd be selling as soon as they hit the market, while the price for similar homes out in the sprawling suburbs would be sagging and they'd be sitting on the market unsold for long periods of time. But that's just not the case. All of which suggests to me that it's much less a case of developers leading home-buyers to single-family homes suburbs, and more a case of home-buyers leading developers to build single-family homes in the suburbs."
DeleteI don't disagree. My brother's family and mother certainly agree with you. When you have a family and have money, you want to get a nice home (and away from the homeless). Most often around here that means a new home. Homes built in the last 5 or 10 years have the advantages of being more stylish, having that clean appeal that one gets with a new car, and they are generally more affordable because they were built on a otherwise undeveloped tract of land.
I agree. What do we do? Are we going to continue this? when do we stop? Do we stop when some of us want to place the final mall in the last piece of open space like Istanbul?
I know its hyperbole that you, Rex and LW will use against me - see Santa Rosa. But the only difference is the matter of degrees. You attack "unfettered" and "carte blanche" and the above hyperbole rightly because you are technically correct. The debate we are having is should be control? I think both of our answers would be "sure". The next question is how. You seem to be arguing we are doing fine, we can make some improvements, but anyway we are doing what we can given the economy and what people want. Fair?
I know I'm making a difficult argument. I am fighting against the free market as much as it can be in real estate. The thing is, that it is really impossible to have a totally free market. I would argue we have almost the exact opposite of a free market -in that it's a controlled market - it has to be in real estate there already is an existing landscape. Building on land that already has structures is much more expensive. Also, people probably live or have businesses in many of those structures. Eureka will never grow up as long as there is a chance for McKinnleyville, Cutten, Fortuna etc to grow out as you say.
So what do we do? I don't know. I do know that placing more of the decision-making in the hands of the property owners is not the right path. It is simpler, it is more efficient, it might lead to a stronger economy (but even that I would argue) but it lacks the planning that our increased knowledge of the economy and environment requires. Be honest with me and yourself. Look no further than you and LW progressive views. Your interests in sustainability (progressive) sharply decrease at your property line (I'm not arguing they go to zero mind you - they just decrease sharply) That is why we need at least 3 Supervisors on the BOS that understand the broader universe of planning. Interests of the community go beyond that property line - oh, and they are very very complicated. These BOS should appoint and hire commissioners and staff that have an understanding of Federal and State regulations and policies that promote an exceptionally forward looking growth pattern. I'm fighting to be the Portland of rural counties. We deserve it given the beauty of our area and how much smart growth could add to the aesthetics and thus tourism.
DeleteTo mirror your argument, once the public sector is in control again, I think it should be very customer (developer/contractor) friendly, we should be creative, we should work together to get rid of stupid or outdated regulations that will help make building in Eureka, say, easier. You know - honor the developers and land owners. Really.
"Your interests in sustainability (progressive) sharply decrease at your property line"
DeleteNo, they do not.
I certainly agree that "we need at least 3 Supervisors on the BOS that understand the broader universe of planning." I believe we have that now. You seem to believe that only Lovelace understands planning and has the long term interests of the county in mind. I don't believe that, and once again, here's why: The actual policy provisions that the current board majority have straw voted on simply do not back up a belief that only Lovelace understands planning and has the long term interests of the county in mind.
Without SML (Supervisor Mark Lovelace) Hezekiah and Dan E. in the crowd, we would still have natural resources instead of ecosystem services. I still think it would have completely been missed if Mark didn't bring it up in the second meeting. What other differences would we have if we had 2 more? I don't know. We would also probably have the increased incentive for clustering of 2 (whatevers) from 1.5 . Moving ahead - in the first section of energy (which I finally can speak to) Why shouldn't we shoot to exceed state mandates where appropriate? Maybe with Lovelace in the majority we would. I would argue the policy provisions do back my beliefs.
DeleteAlso, my interests sharply drop at my property line as do yours (remember, I'm not arguing they drop to zero). I can't afford to pay for this feral cat's food across the street forever. I'm helping her out now as she has a kitten the humane services in town can't catch. All of our interests drop sharply at our property line. Rightfully so. That's why we need governments to figure out where we have to pool our resources to build a civilization.
Also, see my point about the need for this blog. I would be soooo guilty now if we were the only two having a conversation on SP. I would feel I was responsible for changing the atmosphere. It's a me thing, I know. Thanks again for the conversation over here.
I think the Mark Lovelace jab goes to the second level of arguments....I guess it is fair game in the sphere of politics - but while it is an effective gotcha tactic it has nothing to do with policy.
ReplyDeleteI think in your anxiousness to defend Lovelace from a perceived attack, you've missed my point. While one could make an argument about Lovelace being hypocritical, and such an argument might have some validity, it wouldn't be particularly constructive. I won't claim that the hypocrisy angle has never occurred to me, but that's not where I was going with this comment.
My point was responding to your assertion that advertising by developers and realtors was a major factor leading to people choosing suburban settings. I doubt that Lovelace was tricked by advertising into buying a home in a setting he didn't really want, but rather that he wanted the same kinds of real advantages that many other people are looking for and which leads them to buy homes in suburban settings -- privacy, space for a lawn and garden, space to entertain guests and for children to play, space for outdoor pets, peace and quiet, neighbors at more of a distance, etc., etc.
What I'm saying is that if your desire is for more people to choose more densely-packed, clustered housing settings, it's not so much a matter of overcoming advertising and more a matter of addressing some much more fundamental challenges arising from the very real advantages that people perceive in suburban settings -- even people like Mark Lovelace who may recognize the downsides of such settings. In my view, the advertising is more of an effect than a cause -- the advertising isn't just saying "here, this is what you should want," it's saying "here, look, we have what you already want."
But what they want to sell is a narrow choice. It's a choice of what they either have to sell or have just built. What they have built depends on what is economical to build. What is economical to build is on property that is free of structures and large enough to build many at a time. "We have what you already want" is just a more manipulative way of saying "this is what you should want". It's why advertising exists - otherwise companies would give up advertising and use an improved craigslist. They are always telling us this is what you should want. If you want to be cool, if you want women to like you, if you want to be attractive to men, if you want your kids to be happy, etc.
DeleteWhat I'm saying is that if your desire is for more people to choose more densely-packed, clustered housing settings, it's not so much a matter of overcoming advertising and more a matter of addressing some much more fundamental challenges.
I agree. I believe it is in our communities (BOS's) interest to address these challenges. Thus cast my vote for Clif Clendenen over Supervisor Fennell (if of course I could carpetbag-vote)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome of these challenges are easier to deal with than others. For example, a clustered "smart growth" type housing project -- like, for example, the relatively new development (the one with all the solar panels) that you can see from 299 over in Valley West -- can have a children's playground included in the layout of the outdoor common areas, thus satisfying a desire of young families for a safe outdoor place for the kids to play. And, like Marsh Commons in Arcata, they can include an indoor common space that different residents can reserve for entertaining guests (parties, events, etc.). Community gardens can be included to give people a space to grow at least a little bit of their own food and to enjoy gardening as a hobby. In other words, by recognizing some of the real advantages that people perceive suburban living arrangements to have, designers of cluster developments can (and often do) try to include design features to help provide at least some measure of those advantages to those living in the clustered development.
DeleteOn the other hand, some of the challenges are a lot tougher, and may not be easily solved through just including certain features in the design, because there are differences that are just inherent in having less space. For example, when you pack a lot more people into a smaller area, you're bound to have more noise from neighbors, less privacy, less personal outdoor and indoor space in general for gardening, outdoor pets, etc. A conflict with a neighbor who shares an entrance way with you, or is right is on the other side of a wall, or who you have no choice but to hear and see at close range every day, is a bit different than a conflict with a neighbor who is a bit farther away. A small plot in a community garden is a bit different than one's own large backyard garden. A dog park down the street is different than letting Fido out in the back yard whenever he wants. Bringing small kids to the playground somewhere within the housing complex is different from letting them play in the sandbox in your own fenced backyard. Reserving the common event room ahead of time for a planned gathering is a bit different from having one's own space to entertain friends who casually drop by for an impromptu gathering. An apartment or condo is different than a house with a large outdoor space and a garage and/or shop space where one can have tools, a workshop, space for hobbies or home-based small business.
In other words, while tightly clustered living can be great for many people, and certainly has many of its own advantages, people are, in fact, giving up some real advantages if they choose a tighter space where their options for what activities they can pursue within their space are indeed more limited. The point being, it's not just about people being "fooled" by developers into wanting space they don't really want and which provide them no real advantages -- but rather that there are real advantages that they are being asked to sacrifice.
So, again, this was not intended as a personal "jab" at Lovelace, but rather as an explanation of why it's just not as simple as profiteering developers bending us to their will. It's about so many of us wanting the things that suburban settings offer, and developers -- who are in the business of creating the kind of housing many people want, and are willing to devote decades of their
lives to paying for -- catering to the desires many people already have. "If you build it, they will come" only works when enough of "them" (us) want to come to what you've built.
That's probably all I have time for today.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm reconsidering my decision to indulge your request to converse with you here, as I see you've taken the liberty to reply over at SoHum Parlance.
So I'm a little unclear in what's going on. It seems as if you prefer that I should only reply to you here, because supposedly you think we'd be taking up too much space there if we reply to each other there, but then you've just gone and taken up space there to reply to me. If I reply to your reply there, will you go back to complaining about how much space I'm taking up, and waste more space and time with your inaccurate speculations about my identity and motivations?
And supposedly you think the conversation here would be better because of the lack of an auidience, but then you're going ahead and replied to me there -- is it the case that you want to have the "audience" for your comments, but believe it's unfair if replies to your comments have the same "audience?" That seems a bit asymmetrical, and kind of comes off as you trying to "game the system" in some way.
I's like to assume that's not intentional, but the way it comes off is that you want to post whatever you want wherever you want, but for me to follow your imposed rules on what I should respond to where, and that if I don't comply, you'll continue to disrupt the discussion with your motive-questioning, accusations of paid shilling and sock puppetry, and so on. This seems like a sort of bullying/manipulation, and I'm not inclined to submit to that.
So when I have time I'll respond to the other comments you have already posted here. But as far as what you've posted at SoHum Parlance, I'll respond there, not here. Otherwise it's going to be a very disjointed and asymmetrical conversation. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that this is unintentional on your part, and respond accordingly.
just so you know I haven't read these yet, I'm just visiting to try to figure out how to italisize. My first priority is replying to your SP post.
ReplyDeleteStill need to go through your posts - did a quick reading.
ReplyDeleteThe point of this place is to discuss in depth - Like to today's points - I think that is fair. . I made a point, you rebut, I rebut, you rebut, enough. I'll let you have the last word in there after my post today. I've made my point and had a chance to respond to your point - and you should respond to my responce if you feel the need. That seems symmetric and fair.
I know I will have more to say, but when we start getting into the weeds I think it is better to be done here. I don't want to game the system at all. If you have original points please do make them in SP. This is just a nice place to voice our disagreements in the weeds because obviously we can go back and forth quite a bit. I view this as an overflow reservoir for two obviously on the spectrum o/c ers.
Again, I appreciate this forum. And I cannot be more sincere when I say that I am concerned about over staying my welcome in SP. You must be cognizant of that to given all the grief you get about TRA, etc.
also, I have no problem if you want to attack me with the same frequency I do with my drive-by (ie short) passive-aggresive attacks on your anonymity. That kinda goes with the SP culture - that is not why I wanted another blog. It's those long posts where we do get into more detail which I think is important. As you say, hillmuffin's 9 words idea is vulnerable to sloganeering.
ReplyDeleteIt will take me a day or two or three to follow up on your posts above.
Enjoy the day. and now I really am leaving the keyboard for the day.
"I have no problem if you want to attack me with the same frequency I do with my drive-by (ie short) passive-aggresive attacks on your anonymity."
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, if you persist in this behavior, our discussions are going to remain asymmetrical in that respect, as I have no desire to "attack" you in that way, or for that matter in any other way, and I'm not going to start attacking you just to make you feel better about attacking me or to make things more symmetrical, or whatever.
I would, of course, prefer that you were able to restrain yourself and just stick to the topics being discussed rather than indulging in the distracting and meaningless ad hominem stuff.
But I have no control over how you choose to invest your time, mental effort, and keystrokes, and so I will just try to do my best to not get bogged down in any of that going forward. I'll probably just ignore it except to point out that it's a distracting, meaningless, ad hominem waste of space.
We gotta have humor TOA. I don't mean any of these attacks personally as I have no idea who you are. I am trying to deal with an inherent problem with our discussion. We can see so much more about where an individual is coming from when we know what their background is. Having a background as a cab driver, I have a pretty good ability to place people within broader categories. We are all in one or several categories. Sometimes others can tell where we lie better than we can ourselves. I'm trying to place you without knowing who you are. (I still haven't gotten back to that post where you describe yourself - I will someday)
ReplyDeleteI also have an extensive amateur experience with politics. You have very interesting positions. From what I've read so far it doesn't fit neatly into conservative or progressive - just like Estelle doesn't.
Just a couple of quick points from a cursory reading of today's postings. Judy and histrionic? This is an epithet that definitely brings attention to Judy's gender. This is a trick I see on the right a great deal - the left isn't blameless - but much more on the right. Blog's posting on the appearance of Councilmember Atkins, Right wing talkers use of shrill etc when talking about Hillary, the left I'm sure does this too with Palin. That is not an adjective I would expect from a seemingly progressive person like yourself. Any one of my posts is more histrionic than Judy's. If you have used that adjective on me then I half-retract the above. (only half because I don't find her article histrionic in the least as I tried to argue before)
Also, I can believe you are still going on about Supervisor Lovelace's personal choices. This is almost exclusively a tactic of the right (at least 80%) Al Gore, Edwards and his huge house, etc. Personal lives are personal lives and the right even more that the left should understand this. One of their principles is honoring personal success. Al, John and Mark can live where they wants. We are all hypocrites to one extent or another. I have been going to McDonalds a lot recently. Send me to environmentalisticly-hypocritical hell. If S. Lovelace was my father or brother I would give him as hard a time as I do my mother who is a very progressive person but just bought a new house with a view in McKinleyville. Its a great tactic to use on the campaign trail because it goes to liberals as elites. When the truth is the opposite. The wealthy are the elites. It's a sort of faux populism debate tactic which goes to my continuing question of who are you? Also why focus on S. Lovelace. Shouldn't you be glad there is a true blue liberal in the mix? You have agreed that he is the most knowledgeable in the room on all things GPU. Isn't that important in it's own right? I'll have more to say on this later but I wanted to open the valve before I blew a gasket. Humor again, don't take it personally. - you know like your software jab - that was great. You are very generous as I have said before to engage in this conversation.
"We are all hypocrites to one extent or another. I have been going to McDonalds a lot recently."
DeleteAgain, I was not harping on Lovelace for being a hypocrite, I was using him as a stark example of how even people not brainwashed by advertising, or lacking for other choices, find real advantages in suburban living, and therefore the problem of trying to get them to make different housing choices goes well beyond issues of advertising, or the influence of realtors and developers.
But since you insist on discussing the hypocrisy angle, I would just point out that your analogy between Lovelace living in the edge of the suburbs, single-families-only neighborhood and you eating McDonald's food would only make sense if you were simultaneously making a career out of saying that other people should not eat at McDonalds, while eating at McDonalds yourself every single day. And if that were the case, then yes, your hypocrisy would certainly be grounds for legitimate criticism.
But there would also be another point that could be made, not really about hypocrisy, but about the fact that people choose McDonald's not just because of advertising, or because there is nowhere else to eat, but because they perceive real advantages (namely, price and convenience) to eating at McDonald's and therefore if you want to talk them out of it, you have to deal with these deeper challenges. This is the point that I was making about Lovelace's housing choice, and he was simply an excellent example because I assume it was not advertising that fooled him into his choice (and I don't at all buy the excuse that he didn't have any other choices).
It's unfortunate that, at least up to this point, you don't seem to have been able to get past your knee-jerk defensive reaction and consider the entirely of what I wrote and what it means in relation to homebuyers in general, not just a certain politician, hypocrite or not.
but... you may see your arguments as extremely fair minded and even-handed, but as I have been trying to address through sarcasm and humor, I think your arguments are just as "pushy" to use Cookies' term as mine are needle -y. Your authoritative voice comes from (my opinion) faux - reasonable middle ground. I believe most of your views on all things GPU are extreme pro private property rights. I don't think I could find a difference between your position and a Tea Partiers. I know this because I was there at the 6/3 meeting when many Tea Partiers also found this process to be very fair and even handed. I cry foul again!
ReplyDeleteAnd btw, you are right to ignore. I am sensitive to that, if you are not partaking in the jabs and being a reasonable and not-so-pushy voice, then I will eventually come on board too. Take a look at you posts over the past month though - not always as fair minded and sober as the post above tho.
One more thing - I am feeling that you might call an equivalence argument on Lovelace's choice in home to say me questioning someone's (longwind's say) view as a vested interest given his totaly hypothetical position as a land owner. You can go there if you like, but I don't think the arguments would be equivalent. I would have to figure out why, but I feel those are two different arguments.
oh yeah - is it really that asymmetrical? Look at the title of this blog - you needle too.
The thing is, if you persist in this behavior, our discussions are going to remain asymmetrical in that respect, as I have no desire to "attack" you in that way, or for that matter in any other way, and I'm not going to start attacking you just to make you feel better about attacking me or to make things more symmetrical, or whatever.
ReplyDelete- suit wearing - commissioner TOA
"Chicken Little, meet Boy Who Cried Wolf."
- mud slinging - politician TOA
It's part of the game TOA. We both do it, the asymmetry is only a matter of style. Let's try to get some interesting debate in between the sometimes fun, sometimes annoying needling.
Needle away. It's part of the game.
Speaking of needling and games, have you read ASOIAF or watched HBO's A Game of Thrones? I just discovered a blog that has found the riddle behind the narrative of GRR Martin's series.
"Judy and histrionic? This is an epithet that definitely brings attention to Judy's gender."
ReplyDeleteIt does? That's news to me. Are you sure you're not confusing it with "hysterical," which I am well aware IS a word that does have a gender-based origin?
Wondering if the word had some relationship to gender, and with some trepidation at running the risk of being "pushy" and overly "authoritative" with my troubling habit of bringing up those pesky "fact" thingies, I decided nonethelesss to look it up in Merriam-Webster:
"1: deliberately affected : theatrical
2: of or relating to actors, acting, or the theater"
Origin of HISTRIONIC
Late Latin histrionicus, from Latin histrion-, histrio actor
First Known Use: 1648
I'm not seeing where the gender thing comes in. I apply it to overly dramatic actions by both males and females.
"still going on about Supervisor Lovelace's personal choices. "
ReplyDeleteSerious question: Did you actually read my responses, rather than just skim them? I'm having a hard time believing you actually read them, because clearly you did not absorb the point. If not, please take the time to actually read what I took some care to write. If you did, try reading it again. If you read it carefully, and still think the point of it was a personal attack on Mark Lovelace, then I have serious doubts about whether it's worth trying to have any kind of conversation with you.
"...it goes to liberals as elites. When the truth is the opposite. The wealthy are the elites."
ReplyDeleteSeriously? Some liberals are wealthy, and many liberal politicians are wealthy -- including nearly all liberal politicians at the national level. Are they not elites? Many conservative politicians are wealthy, including nearly all conservative politicians at the national level.
Meanwhile, none of our current supervisors are wealthy, but all are, by virtue of their elected position, among our local political "elites."
I think it would be accurate to call Lee Ulansey and Bill Barnum members of the political "elite" -- at least by Humboldt Standards. It would also be accurate to call Judy Hodgson and Patrick Cleary members of our local "elites," as both are wealthy, and in addition to that, both control local media outlets which they use to push their political agendas, just as Arkley did with his short-lived foray into the newspaper biz.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the "elites" in Humboldt County (and perhaps everywhere?) are some monolithic group that are all arrayed on one side of the issues. If so, that's a serious misunderstanding of the facts that is going to continue to lead you into a lot of confusion and miscalculation.
"I'm trying to place you without knowing who you are. (I still haven't gotten back to that post where you describe yourself - I will someday)"
ReplyDeleteHow about this: Before wasting further effort grossly mis-guessing where I'm coming from in various self-serving ways, how about you actually take the 5 minutes to read the information that I generously provided -- after you repeatedly badgered me to provide that very information and repeatedly attacked my motivations and character on the basis that you supposedly had no choice to do so because I hadn't told you enough about where I was coming from.
I'm trying to be patient with you, I really am. But it's hard to justify putting in the effort to converse with you when you made such strident demands for contextual/personal information because supposedly it's really important to you to know where I'm coming from, and then when I took the time to write, in detail and from the heart, exactly where I'm coming from on this stuff, you suddenly couldn't be bothered to even read it, or "don't have the time," and yet you still have plenty of time to continue with the character assassination, paranoid identity fantasies and impugning of motives. In just a fraction of the time you spent spinning your fanciful tales of paid shillery, sock puppetry, and general skullgduggery, you could have read the information -- that you so stridently demanded, and that I provided -- many times over. And yet you chose not to? What am I to make of that?
Given this, if you were in my position, wouldn't you be starting to question the sincerity and good faith of "Democratic Jon" by this point, and wondering why you should bother to engage with someone who behaves in this way?
Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive emotionality and attention-seeking, including inappropriately seductive behaviour and an excessive need for approval, usually beginning in early adulthood. People affected by HPD are lively, dramatic, vivacious, enthusiastic, and flirtatious. HPD affects four times as many women as men.[1] It has a prevalence of 2–3% in the general population, and 10–15% in inpatient and outpatient mental health institutions.[2]
ReplyDelete"Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as..."
DeleteUmmm, O.K. I wasn't aware of that. I was using "histrionic" in its normal sense of overly dramatic, not referring to this new DSM defined disorder. I don't see how this would translate to the word "histrionic" being inherently sexist epithet, and certainly I didn't intend it that way. The word histrionic has been around since at least 1648, whereas application to this pyschological disorder is obviously quite recent. I still tend to think that the perception of it as a sexist epithet is mostly based on the mistaken assumption that it came from the same root and history of usage as "hysterical," which it doesn't. It came from a reference to actors and acting -- and in fact this was at a time when most actors were men.
That being said, perceived connotations change over time, and even if those connotations are based on erroneous beliefs about the origins and usage histories of those words, they still become the new connotation. So perhaps we're somewhere in that process now, especially given that "histrionic personality disorder" has now replaced "hysterical personality disorder," and "hysterical" does have sexist roots.
Ironically, from some reading I just did, it sounds like the APA substituted "histrionic" specifically because it did NOT have the sexist connotations that "hysterical" had. Kind of a stupid choice, though, since it sounds so similar and can easily lead to the mistaken belief that the two words were related in origin. And since the disorder supposedly occurs more often in women than men, I can see how calling something "histrionic" could now be perceived as intended to invoke a stereotype of feminine emotionality or whatever.
So, anyway, thanks for bringing it to my attention, and I would just suggest that you should be aware that people using the word "histrionic" are not necessarily intending it as a sexist epithet, as indeed I was not.
At any rate, this is yet another distraction from the actual point of my comments, something you seem to have quite knack for, intentional or not.
The bottom line is that whether using the term "histrionic" in it's original, non-sexist, dictionary-correct sense, or just using the phrase "overly-dramatic," I think Hodgson's comments like "build, baby, build" (both wildly inaccurate in terms of the actual provisions of the GPU, and with it's implied comparison to Sarah Palin), and "pay homage to the moneyed land barons," and "power grab," and "unfit to serve" and so on are all ridiculously over-dramatic, and therefore amount to, in the original and still dictionary-definition sense, a "histrionic" tone.
I'm getting there TOA. Be patient - or not -it's up to you. I'll continue to post responses here in good faith. You can cherry pick responses to my posts too. It is the inherent problem with blogging - you can only address so much at a time. Specifically I want to address your valid point about people (the market) favoring the suburbs. I've addressed it before, but I want to take the chance to delve deeper.
ReplyDeleteI only have so much time and am very interested in continuing the conversation. While SP posts are more timely, I hope this blog can be for deeper, more thoughtful and longer conversations. Sometimes though, as you know we have to respond more quickly when dealing with those needles et. al.
I won't ask again about background, I wasn't really asking as much as trying to explain where the paranoia comes from.
Histrionic definition from Wiki
And to answer the questions serious questions. Yes I read it - and not I have not yet had the time to respond to your larger point. and Yes - seriously - I think there is a battle to be the opposite of elites in political discourse nationally. Conservatives will say the ruling class elites or liberal elites or Hollywood elites to make the populace feel that hey - I'm not one of them. While I believe the true elites are those 20% that own 80% of the wealth.
ReplyDeleteCase in point - I have brought that point up at least three occasions. You haven't yet rebutted that yet. I know you will in time. We both have certain priorities in this political debate.
Of course the supervisors are not elites. How would Arkley do? Why would he take the time? It's much easier and effective to find a great guy like Rex Bohn who everybody loves.
When I say elites I am addressing the national definition as I framed it above.
"You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the "elites" in Humboldt County (and perhaps everywhere?) are some monolithic group that are all arrayed on one side of the issues. If so, that's a serious misunderstanding of the facts that is going to continue to lead you into a lot of confusion and miscalculation."
No, I'm am not assuming they are a monolithic group. I agree totally with the preceding paragraph of yours. Elites come in all sorts of shapes and sizes.
"Elite" is a very effective word politically speaking. I am approaching that term as a political consultant would. If you can slime someone as "elite" you should have a huge advantage just because an "elite" by definition is also a very small population. As I said before regarding S.Lovelace. I could care less about individual's personal lives - I try to avoid those conversations - and please call me on it when I do - I will copt to it and use another argument to make my point. (Thinking about this blanket statement - I do foresee a problem with addressing problems I have with S. Fennell's actual constituents - but I can address that later)
So back to elites. This is a fundamental argument behind the populism of the Tea Party. They are the populists fighting against the ruling elites (local bureaucrats and large utilities - ie smart meters). They believe they are grassroots. I see the AstroTurf in their movement though with the significant prodding by national radio/media and funding by Freedom Works et al.
Now, I understand the symmetric argument Soros/ et. al. and if you make that, well I personally think that would be disingenuous and it would take be back to the background question which I promised I would not go back too. Instead I will take you back to that quin-tiles graph. Do you not agree that the top 20% is where the real power lies? If there really is such as thing as an elite - a real honest-to-god elite, it would be one of the 20%? How many in that 20% are Democrats?
I am fighting for a ruling elite in government I guess. It is an elite that is chosen by the majority of well-informed people. This elite will then take on the private-interest elite (20%) in a power struggle for the direction of our county and country.
Also more fun facts on the wealth v population graph. The 6 Wall Mart heirs own as much as the bottom 40% of the population. Ok - there is an example where I used a private individual in an example? Am I being a hypocrite? I'd still argue no.
this was a very easy blurb to write and thus I did. I still want to get back to your earlier post about M Lovelace and suburbs. That will take more thought and require more time to compose and post. Hope you understand.
I appreciate this more nuanced take on "elites." There is, of course, a question of definitions, as one can be an "elite" bicycle racer, or an "elite" archaeologist or whatever, but clearly what you're talking about is economic and political elites, among which there is clearly a very large overlap.
DeleteIn my view, most Tea Partiers are not economic and/or political elites, but they are certainly being manipulated by economic/political elites like the despicable Koch Brothers. One could make a similar argument -- and I think there's some real validity to the concern -- that grassroots small rural landowners in Humboldt, who are members of HumCPR, are being manipulated, or at least at risk of being manipulated by, wealthier real estate development interests who might qualify as political/economic "elites," at least in a relative, big-fish-in-a-small-pond sense.
From my experience with rural folks who support Estelle and oppose what they see as overreach and anti-rural resident bias on the part of the previous leadership of the planning department and the previous board majority, most of these folks are not fools, or easily fooled, and are well aware that their own interests and the public interest in general are not always the same as the interests of wealthy elites. Thus, while I acknowledge concerns about manipulation of this grassroots base by wealthy elites, I am not especially concerned about it. I realize that I have an advantage in that, for example, I know who "longwind" is and am familiar with his history, genuine environmentalist bona fides, and overall political orientation (very much on the left) and therefore I am not at all concerned that he, and the many folks like him among HumCPR's grassroots base and among Estelle's electoral base are at any risk of being fooled into adopting the broader Tea Party agenda. I realize that you may not have this direct knowledge, so I don't blame you for having concerns about that, but I would just encourage you to avoid assuming that the grassroots base of HumCPR, and Estelle's supporters, and so on, are either Tea Party true believer types, or at any great risk of being fooled into becoming that. I don't expect you to accept as a fact, just on my say-so, that most or many of them aren't -- that would be unrealistic given your lack of knowledge and experience with these folks -- I'm just suggesting that you try to keep an open mind about that.
For my part, I'm not an "extreme pro-property rights" Tea Party type. I have no problem with zoning, reasonable regulations, etc. But, as referenced in the "where I'm coming from" comment (that I hope you will give a careful read to soon) there have been very real examples of abuse and overreach around here, justified in the name of regulation and environmentalism, which have caused many of us to be very skeptical of those pushing a certain narrative. That doesn't mean that we're for unfettered development, or wholesale subdivision of resource lands, or whatever.
DeleteI'm not at all "anti-government." My position is, tell me what aspect of governmental action or proposed governmental acuion you're talking about, and I'll tell you whether I'm "pro" or "anti" relative to that aspect.
Increasing the minimum wage? Strongly "pro." Protecting collective bargaining rights? Strongly "pro." Much tougher (and smarter) regulation of corporations and Wall Street? Strongly "pro." Anti-trust actions? Strongly "pro." Protecting civil rights? Strongly "pro." Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, pesticide regulation? Strongly "pro." Regulating water use to protect endangered waterways? Strongly "pro." Protecting -- and better yet, expanding and improving -- national parks, wilderness areas, etc.? Strongly "pro." Equal pay for women? Strongly "pro." Marriage equality? Strongly "pro." Single-payer health insurance, or at least a public option? Strongly "pro." Lacking those options, supporting the Obamacare insurance exchanges and subsidies, and expansion of Medicaid? Strongly "pro." Protecting and strengthening and not privatizing Social Security and Medicare? Strongly "pro." And on and on.
But I'm "anti" a lot of government actions too. Waging "preventive" wars overseas? Strongly "anti." Warrantless wiretapping and NSA data-hoovering? Strongly "anti." Torture and indefinite detention? Strongly "anti." Locking up huge numbers of our fellow citizens for non-violent drug "offenses?" Strongly "anti." Profiling people based on perceived race, ethnicity, language, appearance, socioeconomic class, etc.? Strongly "anti." Rounding up and indefinitely detaining and denying due process to undocumented immigrants? Strongly "anti." Slashing and/or privatizing social safety net programs? Strongly "anti."
Obviously, I could go on and on, but hopefully I've made my point -- "pro-government" and "anti-government" aren't very meaningful labels to apply to most people, because most people are "pro" some government actions, and "anti" others.
Increase minimum wage? State/National.
DeleteCollective bargaining rights? State/National.
Regulation of corporations and Wall St? National
Anti trust actions? National
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, pesticide regulation? State/National.
Regulating water use to protect endangered waterways? State/National.
Protecting -- and better yet, expanding and improving -- national parks, wilderness areas, etc.? State/National.
Equal pay for women? National/State.
Marriage equality? National/State.
Single-payer health insurance, or at least a public option? National/State.
Lacking those options, supporting the Obamacare insurance exchanges and subsidies, and expansion of Medicaid? National.
Protecting and strengthening and not privatizing Social Security and Medicare? National/State.
Waging "preventive" wars overseas? National
Warrantless wiretapping and NSA data-hoovering? National.
Torture and indefinite detention? National.
Locking up huge numbers of our fellow citizens for non-violent drug "offenses?" State/Local/National.
Profiling people based on perceived race, ethnicity, language, appearance, socioeconomic class, etc.? Local/State/National
Rounding up and indefinitely detaining and denying due process to undocumented immigrants? National.
So you brilliantly made my point. Thank you. This may not be a concern to you (unless you are Jim - Kidding! I retract that statement) because I don't think you have addressed the appropriateness of Supervisor Fennell getting the HCDCC endorsement.
My point is that I would vote against the endorsement every time - even before her vote on the GP because we knew what she would do based on her affiliations. (palling around with HumCPRer's).
I agree on most of those points too. Sounds like you would be at home in the Democratic Party or at least would usually vote for officials left of center. My point is a Supervisor's influence on all those is minimal. A Supervisor's influence on guiding development inventively toward more sustainable patterns as befits an exceptional region as ours? Extremely heavy.
Your are correct about anti-government, pro-government. It is an imperfect label. But it is one I find extremely useful to take on the whole spectrum of debates that are currently popular. From the Alex Jones to the Lindsey Grahams. It is the frame within which the national dialog is taking place. Unfortunately. I also think it is an extremely important frame to take back from Ronald Reagan. People need to start connecting their Patriotism to the Nation with Patriotism for the government again. I don't want to be a brownshirt or a Polyanna, but we on the left need to start making the argument that public is not as efficient as private, but it has a great deal of advantages. It's just it is much more lucrative to complain about government. Government is an easy target as their discussions and actions are often public and messy (and they have authority which no one likes). The complainers out there are making a fortune taking advantage of the space between money and public good.
Within the left, you are correct, pro/anti government has less impact. But for our disagreement, I think it defines a useful frame. Also, when you go out there and campaign for Estelle, you will be getting a bunch of votes from those who are coming from a purely anti-government view. You would not be an effective adviser to have Estelle brandish herself as pro-government - at least when you are addressing the Tea Party groups and related demographics. But you know this.
Having said all that, as I decide whether or not to support Hezekiah Allen, his membership on the HumCPR board is going to be less significant because his influence on local development is less and his influence on those other issues you mention is greater.
So apparently you think people like myself are totally into collective interests at the state and national level, but somehow completely disregard this at the local level. Nonsense. I believe that the very moderate, sensible approach being taken by Estelle is in our collective interest. Apparently you don't...yet you seem unable to point to any concrete actions that she and the rest of the board majority have taken that are against that collective interest. Just lots of generalizations. Tell me what concrete actions they've taken, what actual provisions in the GPU that they've straw voted on, that you believe are against our collective interest, and we'll have something to talk about.
DeleteBy the way, as has been pointed out by others on Sohum Parlance, a great deal of what appears in the GPU and in planning process in general, is determined by state law. The TPZ law, water law, forestry law, etc. So if you are only comfortable with Hezekiah Allen being a State Rep because you believe the state has little influence on land use policy, you may want to re-consider your assumptions.
DeleteI think a better reason for someone like you to feel comfortable about Allen is that he has a strong record of environmental leadership as director of the Mattole Restoration Council, a group with a long and impressive track record of innovative restoration and sustainability work in a rural setting.
By the way, Allen's involvement in both MRC and HumCPR kind of undercuts the notion that HumCPR is fundamentally anti-environmental in its orientation, is a Tea Party-like group only concerned about narrow economic self-interest, etc. If that was the case, you wouldn't find folks like Allen and Longwind involved.
The binary categorization of...
Lovelace / Healthy Humboldt = environmentalists / public interest group / collective interests / long-term thinking
vs
Fennell / HumCPR = anti-environmentalists / special interest group / individual interests / short-term thinking
is simply a false categorization, in my opinion.
The jury is still out on Hezekiah. I have spoken with him and do agree with your characterization. Time and options will tell. I also agree with your point on State Regulations. He still is one of how many? Supervisors here are one of five.
DeleteI don't think you completely disregard collective interests. I think like I carefully described earlier that it is human nature and mostly to the benefit of democracy in general, that our interests drop dramatically at our property line. In this particular case your opinions happen to overlap with those of HumCPR which happen to overlap with people like my former boss - Fred Sunquist. (who may or may not be related to issues of regional planning in some way than he has lots of property and lots of money). (He is on the HumCPR board btw and therefore is outspoken on this public issue. That is why I bring him up)
I also have made the point that this case of private v collective is the single most important issue locally all things considered. I don't think you would deny that.
So you can tout your collective interests all day long. Apparently no one on this (SP) blog wants to argue from the conservative perspective of the right of a property owner to do what he/she wants. But those who do argue that position voted for Estelle. I refer you to that first public speaker again. "We voted the four of you in now do your job."
I am sorry, but we live in a binary political system.
I don't have to go any further than the GP to make my point. Cookie has done a great job of bringing some of those points in the most recent thread. I would again point you to EK's Mendo GP. Why not? It in itself isn't legally binding? Why can't we have flowery mission statements? Shouldn't we be shooting for the moon?
Of course not. What has to happen given the last election(s) (where every effort was made to make left right and right left, as you do here whether consciously or not) is we have to write GP's that honor landowners. Please see Judy's histrionic article for my feelings on that. Which btw I had before her much more eloquent words expressed my feelings much better that I could.
You have much more experience than I do in these matters. How would you update the GP to include the collective interests related to global warming, erosion loss as it relates to top soil horizons as much as to sedimentation, the direct linkage between average commutes to national interests such as our economy and military spending, the regional benefits of a vibrant county seat, the many problems with our societies de facto suburban and exurban development. Did the change to the GP take into account any of those collective interests? What about our position as a completely vulnerable population if there is global warming? Shouldn't we be out in front of this and yelling at our compatriots in the State and Federal levels to get our collective ass in gear - somewhat like the Maldivian president?
Again, of course not. In fact our Planning Director either denies or is not sure about global warming based on his presentation in front of our Tea Partiers.
DeleteTOA, I don't doubt your politics at this point. It's just on this issue, you are on the same binary side as property owners. Which is legit and fine and a perfectly fine place to be. It also happens to be wrong.
Look, I get the consternation. I cannot speak to the past arguments, perhaps the enviros went too far. Maybe they were promoting no growth. I do know that Shane Brinton shares your view in that he just wants to get this thing passed now. That is extremely disappointing to me. Its the wrong time to want to get this passed. I know this because everyone in the room that first day from the right was so pleased with how things are going. This is a perfectly reasonable compromise in their position as pro property rights and pro environmental. Whatever. I call foul again.
So, for whatever reason, we are at a point where EK and Shane Brinton have thrown in the towel and Supervisor Fennell and Virgina Bass, both Democrats vote on the side of Rex Bohn and ? Sunberg. And we have extremely progressive people like you and longwind fighting tooth and nail for a GPU headed by a decimated GP. Yes - I mean that in both meanings - technical and emotional as going back 10% is not going forward 30 to 50% as we need to be to start addressing serious collective problems ranging from the environment to the economy. Problems that need to be addressed by people who understand that these issues are extremely complicated and sometimes overly restrictive regulation and zoning slowing us down a little is not necessarily a bad thing.
At least until we get a little smarter and update our pattern of development from the 1950's model to a model that can take us into the 2050's. 'Cause the home we will build today will last well past the 2050's - or at least they should.
Delete"I am sorry, but we live in a binary political system..."
Delete"...Its the wrong time to want to get this passed. I know this because everyone in the room that first day from the right was so pleased with how things are going."
What a perfect example of the way mindless binary thinking leads to and justifies willful ignorance. If the other side is willing to accept a compromise, it must be a terrible compromise -- and there's no need to even consider the details to decide on whether that's the case or not. No different than the thought process (if you can call it that) of the "if Obama's for it, I'm against it" crowd.
I have 3 or 4 posts I quickly made this am back up there. Is there a way to sort by most recent? Maybe you could add a widget that has the most recent posts like SP. Enjoy the day. It might be a day or two before I get back here. Remember, no hurry, I've got a lot of other shit going on as I'm sure you do too. I enjoy the challenge of debating these issues with you.
ReplyDeleteOk, now that we are beyond the elite tag...
ReplyDeleteFrom my experience with rural folks who support Estelle and oppose what they see as overreach and anti-rural resident bias on the part of the previous leadership of the planning department and the previous board majority, most of these folks are not fools, or easily fooled, and are well aware that their own interests and the public interest in general are not always the same as the interests of wealthy elites. ... I'm just suggesting that you try to keep an open mind about that.
I don't doubt it. I don't think many in the Tea Party are fools either. My argument is about the collective interests. Most people are going to be voting for their narrow interests without necessarily seeing the benefits of the collective interests. I know I'm out on a limb here - I think you know what I mean though. If you want to quote me on that I'd be more than happy to debate the individual interests within the collective interests.
Also, remember that when that one regulation gets streamlined to help an individual with their real and unfair problem which might be addressed through a more effective building/planning department - it may open the door toward something between the status quo and carte blanche to private interests who would like to simply build what the market desires.
OK, that's it for the day. I think I'm caught up in this thread, I still need to go back to those old SP threads.
OK, I think I've addressed many of your points directly, I get to go off topic a little now. Then again you did address histrionic too.
ReplyDeleteHere is an analysis I agree with found at
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3258 (one of the top google sites related to hystrionic v hysterical.
"Re: Hysteria and histrionics
Postby Sylvia Sybil » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:58 pm
I don't think original contexts can prescribe modern usages of words, given that we do not live in Earthsea and specific combinations of sounds are not imbued with magical power to affect reality. "Man" used to be gender-neutral human; obviously the word is very gendered now. And any number of racists will rush to tell you that various racial slurs originally had value-neutral meanings. Doesn't change the fact that over time the words became insults and then slurs.
It's far more important to look at how words are used now and the modern context of what that word means when we use it. A word's meaning comes from 1) what I mean when I say it 2) what my audience hears when I say it. (Which is why, while I personally don't think hysterical is sexist when applied to laughter, I'm willing to give up the word when I learn my audience still hears sexism in that context.) So words that are apparently ungendered such as whining, nagging, and high-maintenance become gendered when spoken in a societal context that says women perform these behaviors too often and/or don't have the right to perform these behaviors."
"2) what my audience hears when I say it" I might be one of two people in Humboldt county who would pick up the gendered meaning of this comment. Then again, DID you ever use this to describe my histrionic writings? Sometimes our hidden prejudices come through our writings. I include myself in that last sentence too.
Look, given where we live, this is a non-issue. I realize that. I'm not so interested in this argument as I am measuring up your argument and how it relates to a policy of sorts. Hear me out here.
You're response was fair until you got to the point where you said "Ironically, from some reading I just did, it sounds like the APA substituted "histrionic" specifically because it did NOT have the sexist connotations that "hysterical" had. Kind of a stupid choice, though, since it sounds so similar and can easily lead to the mistaken belief that the two words were related in origin" I think you reveal yourself here. (Reveal in the sense I'm trying to get to the basis of your arguments with EK on issues within the details of the GPU without knowing the required context which will take a while) Based on some reading you did you are going to judge the expertise of a group of professionals and specialists who came up with a term, really? I don't know, that is not something I would say. Personally, I think this is telling in the sense that instead of conceding the point that another word would have been better (which, to your credit you did partially), you still had to resort to questioning the authority of the APA. Given that alone, its going to be an uphill battle to convince you that we need 2 more Lovelace clones (regional planning experts) on the board.
Maybe this is similarly questioning authority, but I would like to find out the deeper linguistic connections between histrionic and hysterical beyond what free internet searches can provide. hystera (womb) and histrio (actor). I'm sure you are right about the actors being men. Maybe it referred to actors and the perception of women both representing extremes in emotion or maybe women were seen to be better actors in life? I don't know, but I would guess that there is still a deeper connection between the two similar roots, but that's a question for a Greek Civ (or earlier) specialist. I am a fan of linguistics btw.
This is getting increasingly silly. Rather than simply being honest and conceding that you should not have jumped to conclusions and falsely accused me of deploying a sexist epithet against Ms. Hodgson, you're now resorting to some laughably convoluted "reasoning" / speculation to try to retroactively justify your mistake.
DeleteNext time, perhaps you should think twice before making an accusation of sexism based on the use of a word you apparently hadn't bothered to make sure you understood the definition and origin of.
Then you won't have to tie yourself up in convoluted rhetorical knots trying to cover for your mistake after the fact. Kind of an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" situation.
When it comes to making accusations of sexism based on assumptions about the supposedly sexist origins / connotations of a word or phrase, I would suggest that "measure twice, cut once" is probably a good "rule of thumb."
Really? I stand by my initial protest and have backed it up twice. My accusation was one of using a tried and true political tactic of the right (and of the left to a lesser extent). I stand by that too. If that is calling that use of the term sexist then I stand by it. If you were debating and trying to win a straw vote of the audience against Judy (Ms. Hodgson) on a stage knowing what you now know would you use hysterical? Would you still use histrionic? What percentage of the women in the crowd would notice the difference? What if the audience/judges were entirely female, would you still? Did you characterize any of my histrionic posts as histrionic? (You still haven't answered that one - I just checked the main two threads where we debated - the answer is no) It could be a coincidence, I don't think you did it consciously, but I also don't believe that you can say it wasn't an unconsciously gendered statement. That's how I read it - and as you know as a writer, what your audience thinks matters. I've proven to you it is a word that is commonly used as gendered and I've also pointed you to an online discussion where its status as a gendered adjective is generally agreed with. I brought up two examples - one of them was the first that came up on Google.
DeleteHere is the quote again "what my audience hears when I say it. (Which is why, while I personally don't think hysterical is sexist when applied to laughter, I'm willing to give up the word when I learn my audience still hears sexism in that context.) So words that are apparently ungendered such as whining, nagging, and high-maintenance become gendered when spoken in a societal context that says women perform these behaviors too often and/or don't have the right to perform these behaviors."
We live in a county where Rex Bohn thinks it's OK to say something completely analogous to what President Barack Obama said to Kamala Harris a couple of months ago (and PBO got pilloried for it). I called SRB on it and he said it was ok because the woman was a friend of his (She was a HumCPR representative which only made it worse in my eyes, but I didn't bother him with that). I don't know about you, but I'd still like to bring civilization up here too.
No, that wasn't me backing up convolutedly, that was me trying to have a conversation, and yes an honest one.
"This is getting increasingly silly. Rather than simply being honest and conceding that you should not have jumped to conclusions and falsely accused me of deploying a sexist epithet against Ms. Hodgson, you're now resorting to some laughably convoluted "reasoning" / speculation to try to retroactively justify your mistake."
Again, really? How old are you, seriously? Sometimes it seems like I am writing with a extremely precocious 13 year old. Oh, and don't you see how necessary it is to come back with humor in cases like this? I must (paraphrasing) concede to not jump to conclusions? TOA was falsely accused? (is this a courtroom?) Laughably convoluted? - I really thought I was having a conversation - and btw, I couldn't have been more honest, and I think I was pretty humble and conceded quite a bit too.
Oh and "perhaps you should think twice"? Are you my father too. My lord! Dude, seriously, relax a little bit. Head over to longwind's and chillax with him for a while.
"Cover for my mistake" I really appreciate this conversation, but I am not concerned about mistakes - I am human and this is an audience of two. Haven't I established in the past to you that I am more than humble enough to acknowledge mistakes - I can think of two now - carte blanche and Santa Rosa (even though I used Sacramento) There are probably 15 others too. Histrionic wasn't one of them. I grant you I am highly sensitive to this given my mother is an MD and my father cooks way better than she does - and most people would not have noticed or commented on it - but that is as far back as I will convolutedly backtrack. The rest of the post was trying to have an interesting conversation. And oh, btw, in response to my mother's letter Supervisor Sundberg addressed her as Ms. instead of Dr. as she had written. - It's not the end of the world, but it's still less than 100 years since we males have decided to let women vote.
DeleteOh, and thanks for the advise Mr Franklin. - Sarcasm to try to deal with being verbally pushed into a corner.
I'm off topic, but you hit a nerve. As you do.
Here are some wise words from someone I know "At least I’ve often heard it used and used it myself in that way. As far as I can tell we’re all prejudiced to one degree or another." Don't you think it's possible histrionic came to mind unconsciously because the writer was female. If you say no, I call foul just as much as I would to you saying your interests don't drop dramatically at your property line. Who is the one who isn't being honest?
"I've proven to you it is a word that is commonly used as gendered."
DeleteReally? When did you do that? You pointed to a rather obscure psychological diagnosis, and an online discussion where some people shared their opinions. I suppose that's plenty to "prove" your point to yourself...but then that was never really in question.
Ironically, you're responses on this topic are getting increasingly, well, histrionic.
"obscure" - first hit on Google.
DeletePlease read yesterday's post re. the "On the Media" quote. It goes to the general usage of that term. Please note that in the preceding segment the show spent 5 minutes covering the weekly news of the Egyptian Revolution debating whether or not the term "coup" should have been used. They are very precise with their language. It, histrionic, was a term that was used to somewhat derisively describe a reality TV show specifically about house wives. What I am trying to prove is not how you perceive the word, but how your audience perceives the word.
And it is important because it goes directly to my point about Ms. Hodgson's article. It is commonly vilified by people as a political tactic to denigrate it so its content has less meaning and power. It is exactly the same tactic the right uses to denigrate what they term the liberal media. Their attacks over the years have in fact had their desired effect of basically neutering news into infortainment. (Along with other factors of course as well)
I am not debating your views on women, nor am I debating how you view the term, I am debating your use, whether conscious or unconscious of the term histrionic to describe the article. It uses a term which is commonly used (see - this week's on the media) to describe gender specific items such as a reality show about house wives in a somewhat derisive fashion.
So, you can chose to argue using the 2nd lowest level of the debate triangle, by "catering to my ignorance" or move up the debate triangle and move on the debate. Or not.
DeleteThe way I see it, the way "On the Media" used the term does more to back up my point, rather than disprove my point -- that point being that the term "histrionic" can be, and often is, simply used according to it's dictionary definition of "overly dramatic."
By the way -- I can hardly believe I have to point this out, but apparently I do -- picking out one example that fits your premise does not prove that the one example you picked is representative.
On the website of "On the Media," I found only one other transcript containing the word "histrionic," and it referred to Senator Strom Thurmond's anti-civil-rights filibusters:
http://www.onthemedia.org/2010/jan/22/is-60-the-magic-number/transcript/
To widen out the search a little and try to get a quick sense of whether public radio in general mostly (or even "commonly") uses the term "histrionic" to "describe gender specific items" I googled "NPR histrionic." On the first results page, here's what I found:
One reference to Al Gore's "histrionic" sighing in the presidential debate:
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/09/162561641/one-debate-two-very-different-conversations
One comparison between the histrionics in the show "Scandal" and the histrionics in "Tyler Perry's oevre"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/05/18/184859810/scandal-preposterous-unmissable-important
One reference to the "histrionic" complaints about the use of the word "hopefully" as a "floating sentence adverb."
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/30/153709651/the-word-hopefully-is-here-to-stay-hopefully
One reference to the "kitschy and histrionic" aspects of the movie "Reefer Madness"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/06/11/190775585/the-many-different-faces-of-marijuana-in-america
One reference to the "Town Hall Histrionics" of Tea Party mobs, and
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111766238
One reference to the term "fiscal cliff" being a "histrionic metaphor."
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/165057230/armadebton-and-other-alternatives-to-fiscal-cliff
The closest any of the references on that page came to a gendered reference was a reference to a female singer not being histrionic, with the writer comparing her to other fenmale singers that the writer apparently perceives as having a histrionic tone
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/16/143791870/zara-mcfarlane-a-rocky-emotional-ride
So, according to this random sampling of On the Media and NPR's use of the term, who/what is "histrionic?"
(1) The television program "Desperate Housewives."
(2) Strom Thurmond.
(3) Al Gore.
(4) The television program "Scandal."
(5) Tyler Perry.
(6) People who complain about "hopefully" being used as a "floating sentence adverb."
(7) The movie "Reefer Madness."
(8) The term "fiscal cliff."
(9) Tea Party mobs at Town Hall Meetings.
(10) "Too many" divas.
"Then again, DID you ever use this to describe my histrionic writings?"
ReplyDeleteNot that I'm aware of. But I did use it to describe Lovelace's theatrics, just a couple of months ago:
https://kunsoo1024.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/ryan-burns-on-the-bohnfennell-rewrite-of-the-gpu-guiding-principles/#comment-73962
Meanwhile, a couple of years ago, some commenter used to describe overly-dramatic statements on the other side of the issue:
http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/faust-appointed-to-planning-commission/#comment-63243
OK then. I will concede there is evidence your unconscious is clear(ish). There exists evidence you do not use that term in a gendered manner.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear. I still stand by 100% of the screed above. This is a term as an (the) audience I read as gendered. It that context I have no backing up to do.
Oh, and I heard this this morning on "On the Media" (21 min. in) They were transitioning between stories...
ReplyDelete"And now for something not completely different, reality TV.
What's your pleasure? The competitive excitement of Dancing with the Stars, the histrionics of Real Housewives, ......
Look I believe you when you say you didn't mean it as sexist. I don't think you are any more sexist than I am. In fact, if you like, I'll grant you are probably less sexist. My point is about prejudice in public speech. I think it should be extracted from it.
I do however think you have to admit to yourself that histrionic is used as a gendered term when used to describe women. And no, I won't accept that we should instead debate the intelligence of the APA board.
And to quote Steven Colbert - I accept your apology.
Also, if you do consider this a distraction, I have a many points out there that could be addressed more pertinent to the GPU.
"I do however think you have to admit to yourself that histrionic is used as a gendered term when used to describe women."
DeleteNo thanks. I'm not inclined to cater to ignorance or to reward those who jump to conclusions.
"My point is about prejudice in public speech. I think it should be extracted from it."
I agree that's a worthy goal. I don't agree that this is a case of prejudiced speech.
TOA,
ReplyDeleteI think I still have a bunch of good points on the table which you have either ignored or disregarded such as you ignored the point about the use of "histrionic" on On the Media. It doesn't matter to me, but I am noticing a practice of focusing on my weakest points to diminish me and my arguments. I get that from a political perspective.
Please let me know if I have missed any of your points.
So going forward, we are going to address the GP again. As a progressive, with an eye to a sustainable future, how would you change the GP to further our common goals of a governmental policy that encourages sustainable development.
Maybe we could even make it simpler - where do we agree on general guidelines for sustainable development? Do we disagree on cutting and pasting Mendo's guidelines?
So going forward, we are going to address the GP again.
ReplyDeleteHere I mean we=BOS
Are you still around? Working hard I guess. What would you come up with for a progressive regional planning-based GP. One that would honor what ever it is that EF and you want to honor, but also would honor that fact that there is societal interst on everyone's private lands as well? Things like shooting for denser population centers, mimimizing use of viable ag land (I think our biggest differences are in the forest - so I'll avoid those) reducing sedimentation, incouraging public transportation and walking??? Have I gone nuts? I mean lets free form it here, brainstorm and then we can cull it down later.
ReplyDelete"I think I still have a bunch of good points on the table which you have either ignored or disregarded such as you ignored the point about the use of "histrionic" on On the Media"
ReplyDeleteNot being a fan of "Real Housewives," perhaps there was some actual point there that I didn't understand? My impression is that "histrionics" is an reasonably accurate description of a good deal of the content of "Real Housewives." But I'll admit that I have never actually watched a full episode. So if that's not an accurate impression, and in fact there is very little histrionic behavior in that show, then I guess the use of the term would be inappropriate. Is that what you were getting at? You didn't really make clear what you thought made On the Media's use of "histrionic" a sexist use of the word.
"Please let me know if I have missed any of your points."
ReplyDeleteUnless I missed it, I don't think you addressed this comment:
"I believe that the very moderate, sensible approach being taken by Estelle is in our collective interest. Apparently you don't...yet you seem unable to point to any concrete actions that she and the rest of the board majority have taken that are against that collective interest. Just lots of generalizations. Tell me what concrete actions they've taken, what actual provisions in the GPU that they've straw voted on, that you believe are against our collective interest, and we'll have something to talk about."
In your most recent comment, you say that you think our "biggest differences are in the forest" and offer to avoid that topic. I suggest the opposite -- go ahead and tell me what, in your opinion, you think they did wrong in the Forest Resources section?
As I recall, you said (on SoHum Parlance) that you thought they were too deferential to the representative from the Resource Lands Working Group, and it seemed to me that you assumed that if he was happy, then they must have done something terribly wrong -- but unless I missed something, you never said what it was you thought they had done, policy-wise that was so wrong. This is kind of similar to your statement in this thread where you said that you "knew" this was a bad time to pass the GPU, because those on "the right" seemed happy with it.
Don't get me wrong, I recognize that there is a certain logic to that -- someone who you don't trust / don't like, or who you think doesn't have your interests / our collective interests at heart, likes something, therefore it stands to reason that the something is probably not something you're going to be thrilled with. But this GPU, and in fact most legislative decisions, necessarily involve compromise, and if any time the other party is satisfied with the way a compromise is shaping up, you automatically dismiss it as too far in their direction (without even bothering to see if the actual policy provisions are really objectionable to you) then that's a recipe for knee-jerk obstructionism -- as in our Republican Congress where the motto seems to be "If Obama likes it, I don't need to know anything else, I already know I hate it."
So I'm asking you to go beyond "the other team seems fairly happy, therefore the compromise must be horrible" and tell me which provisions in the GPUs Forest Resources section -- which they've now already straw voted on -- are provisions that you think are actually harmful to our collective interests.
Thanks TOA, I'll get to these in the next 2 or 3 days. I'll start with your point first though, which will take a little longer than quickly sniping back on histrionics which I could do now. Thus the delay. Thanks again for the convo.
ReplyDelete"Although the Forest Resources Element contains provisions that stirred some of the most intense controversy at planning commission hearings in 2011, the supervisors voted 5-0 on all items discussed last Monday, except for one that was sent back to staff for a rewrite."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.redwoodtimes.com/garbervillenews/ci_23670420/supes-near-completion-forest-resources-review-set-new
5-0 means Lovelace voted with the rest of the Supervisors on every single one of these itesm -- so, has the rest of the board successfully brainwashed Lovelace, or has he "sold out" our collective interests to serve the selfish private interests that all the other Supervisors supposedly represent?
Or maybe, as I have argued, the actual policy provisions the Supervisors have been voting for do not even remotely resemble the scaremongering "gone are all the protections" hyperbole that the North Coast Journal was peddling?
And, by the way, is it O.K. to use the word "hyperbole," or is it inherently sexist because it looks and sounds too much like "hysteria?" ;)
..."that the very moderate, sensible approach being taken by Estelle is in our collective interest"
ReplyDeleteThat is provably false from the decimation of the guiding principles. If words have any meaning, that decimation - technically 10% cut back - we agree, is not a moderate approach unless you would concede that 4 of the 5 supervisors are coming from a conservative - property rights approach. A moderate approach given the expanded understood realities of the economy, environment, etc. (I don't need to explain these to you as you are a progressive – you get it) These realities mean a moderate approach would at best be leaving the GP where they stood before SEF changed them. BTW, I would have to argue for ever with a conservative to prove this as a moderate stance.
I also disagree that it is "sensible". I do not see that it even addresses arguably the most significant challenge of our time - climate change. Unless, of course you assume that the board is made up of 4 of 5 conservatives who do believe that either a) climate change is not real or b) climate change is not created by man or c) there is nothing we can do about it since we are such a small population - so screw it.
"Collective". I disagree. You know why. I think it is in the interests of a small portion of the county which is only the collective interest if you take into account that the county runs best when is is run autocratically. (see also my post July 11 12:32 (cntrl – F "completely disregard" until you get there). Moving on....
"Tell me what concrete actions they've taken, what actual provisions in the GPU that they've straw voted on, that you believe are against our collective interest, and we'll have something to talk about."
"concrete actions" - I've pointed to the guiding principles how many times? See also natural resources discussion above. See also discussion about exceeding state measures in the first paragraph of the energy section to be discussed on the 22nd.
"Just lots of generalizations" - no see above.
I cannot discuss the forest sections other than in very general terms and principles. I did mention the specific clustering deal of the 1.5 vs 2 (please refer to and quote earlier post on this not this one as I am writing quickly - July 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM ). I was very pleased they all agreed to not make it any easier to subdivide the 320 acre plots. That means they haven't allowed carte blanche etc. I wish I could speak more to the specifics in the language and understand their relations to actual policy, I just can't. It would take me months to understand the difference between a NIMS and JTIMS (or whatever) and to have an intelligent discussion on it. That's why I wish to elect a representative to understand an make those decisions for me. I'll be able to tell you much more on the specifics in the next section.
"If he was happy, then they must have done something terribly wrong -- but unless I missed something, you never said what it was you thought they had done, policy-wise that was so wrong. " *Sighs* (literally) please see the last paragraph . Also I went into this in some detail earlier. Policy-wise - I don't know TOA. I really cannot translate the language of the forest section to policy. How many different ways do I have to say this? In regards to optics of a biased system and the specifics of the devil in the details I'll try to spell out where I think the nuts are being thrown into the system. a) without Mark, Natural Resources would still be there what does that mean for policy? Everything? Nothing? I think the developers and there lawyers know the difference. b) Sundberg meeting with RLWG guy to come up with the definition for whatever. Gee thanks for the help. Why didn't he ask NCEC? c) RLWG was prepared to rebut several items but when presented with the changes staff made, he didn't care. I've said all this before, and notice that you haven't addressed any of it.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing. Business will always have an enherent leverage when we are speaking specifics and how they related to policy – which you are asking me to do. They are pushing up against the regulations and know exactly what language needs to be changed to accomplish their goals. I am arguing for Supervisors like SML who may not share exactly the same goals as large businesses and many property owners. I think this frame expresses our fundamental disagrement. I (and I think you too as a progressive) want our representatives to be in conflict with business, not in coordination. What the latter gains in efficiency, it loses in long-term viability.
I think I can move on?
"But this GPU, and in fact most legislative decisions, necessarily involve compromise, and if any time the other party is satisfied with the way a compromise is shaping up, you automatically dismiss it as too far in their direction (without even bothering to see if the actual policy provisions are really objectionable to you) then that's a recipe for knee-jerk obstructionism -- as in our Republican Congress where the motto seems to be "If Obama likes it, I don't need to know anything else, I already know I hate it.""
I see your point and in general agree with it. In this case, you won't be surprised to hear I disagree. Specifically I point to the completely outrageous method the GP were amended by SEF and her advisers. And then to hear that she was annoyed with the people for I don't remember what - but the gall to be annoyed with people when she and Rex did?After all the time and thought that went into the original GP, and after all the time and complaining the property rights side was saying about having more public participation. Outrageous and very worthy of the most histrionic most frustrated opinion piece ever! Quote it!
ReplyDelete"So I'm asking you to go beyond "the other team seems fairly happy, therefore the compromise must be horrible" and tell me which provisions in the GPUs Forest Resources section -- which they've now already straw voted on -- are provisions that you think are actually harmful to our collective interests. "
So I've done what I can TOA. I've given you plenty of specifics in a section where I've tried to acknowledge my ignorance. You haven't addressed them. I don't blame you at this point, cause it would be hard to for me to go back up there and find them too - but I've tried to briefly re-touch on the main specifics I brought up - ie clustering insentives, WLRG defining terms, and WLRG no longer concerned with changes. I'm more interested in environmental specifics like top soil erosion, climate change, sedimentation, water use, something about water run off off paved surfaces which Hez.A brought up to me – but I don't understand. We have ignored or retreated on these issues but made progress on streamlining business interests.
Look, WLRG doesn't just represent property rights owners, he represents HUGE property rights owners with the interests as narrow as they sound. How many of S. Fennell's are represented by him other than ones that work for the companies he represents - and I don't think those companies are very well union represented - just a guess - you would know better. And I see the point behind your made up cartoon quote, but it's about process, its about constituents it's about the collective interests and this process is heavily weighted in terms of the BOS itself, but also in terms of their go-to groups for updating and changing the GPU as currently written - the AHWG - which contained property rights groups, foresters, environmental groups, and I don't know whom else. and the Mega-Business -heavy -WLRG. I know what you are saying with the cartoon quote but I disagree.
Did you watch the last meeting? I haven't read anything from you to think you had. One of the points the BOS made was that they were more than happy to take consideration of comments from the public. In fact SEF was "annoyed" a because we have had so much time already to bring these issues to her and I think she was feeling put out by all the damn public fussiness.
And they swore up and down (not literally) that they would take into account these emails when considering the changes. You tell me. Specifically. Where specifically in the Forest Resources Section did the public outside the the two groups that are heavily weight toward private and business interests have a say in policy?
ReplyDeleteLook, I understand and appreciate your point despite characterizing it as a cartoon quote. But the policy here is baked in the process. I'll refer you to a letter Peter Childs wrote to a previous BOS when he wasn't happy with what the public was saying.
https://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/docs/comments/2009draftplan/gpu-402.pdf
Here is the money quote "I therefore request that you put off any decisions on this matter until you hold a workshop with a truly representative group of people who share these concerns and who have literally decades of experience to back them up. I would suggest that this group include Dan Taranto, myself, Bonnie Blackberry, Tom Grover, and Estelle Fennell."
In Peter's mind there is your "collective interests". These 4 people are "a truly representative group of people". Gee, I don't even know most of them, but I guess they are representative of me and my crazy regional planning ideas and sustainable growth ideas – no?
Note the 3 posts above were made before your last comment. Sorry I didn't address it. I'll come back for that and my hysterically histrionic reply to the histrionic controversy tout suite.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I HO LEE FUKin' hate blogger. with their character limit. (KTVU feux pas - sooo racist? prejudiced? bigoted? but so damn hilarious too.)
It still sounds like despite all your huffing and puffing, you can't point to much, if anything, in the way of actual policy provisions that you disagree with in the Forest Resources section. And I'm not talking about the Guiding Principles, which are basically a preamble, I'm talking about the actual policy provisions of the GPU, in this case specifically the actual policy provisions in the Forest Resources section of the GPU. It seems to me that you're basically pleading ignorance -- and stating your intent to remain ignorant -- about the actual policy provisions of Forest Resources section of the GPU, and just assuming there's a lot of bad stuff in there. And as justification for that, you're doubling down on the lazy "The WLRG guy liked it, so there must be something wrong with it" shortcut. Hey, it's your prerogative to take that approach, and just keep repeating generalizations about how the board majority is supposedly serving individual private interests and ignoring our collective interests, and not bothering to go any deeper, but that strikes me as a dogmatic approach that doesn't really lead anywhere constructive.
ReplyDeleteBut okay, I can see that that conversation is kind of at a dead end. So be it. But I'll be interested in your reaction to the fact that every vote in the last meeting was unanimous, including Lovelace. You seem to be unwilling/unable to judge for yourself whether the actual policy provisions that the board has been approving in it's ongoing set of straw votes are in our collective interests or not, and instead seem content to just assume that if the board majority approves something, it must be lousy policy. Okay, I think that's a lazy, let-someone-else-do-your-thinking-for-you approach, but since that seems to be the level you're willing to engage on, what do you make of the fact that on so many of the actual policy provisions of the Forest Resources section -- including ALL the straw votes at the most recent meeting -- the votes have been unanimous?
Since you seem inclined to believe that Lovelace, at least, is looking out for our collective interests, how do you reconcile your pessimism about the way the GPU is shaping up, with the fact that Lovelace has voted with the majority on most of the actual policy provisions in the Forest Resources section? Is it that Lovelace managed to persuade the other 4 to support good policies, or that the other 4 persuaded Lovelace to support bad policies -- or maybe that neither "side" really had to persuade the other side much, because the majority simply are not, and never were, the radical private property extremists they've been painted as in the propagandistic narrative offered by their political opponents?
I tried TOA. Yes, I pleaded ignorance about twenty comments ago. I can't argue something I don't understand. It's only lazy in the sense I would need to do a semester's work of study to say anything persuasive since you are so difficult to persuade. (See following comments on histrionic.) I still think my generalities are significant and you haven't once addressed them. I'll narrow down the three specifics I did mention to one. What about Mark's idea to raise the incentive for whatever it was - I think it was to combine areas of resource land - by allowing property owners who did this another 0.5 (acre or percentage - I'm not sure of specifics) This was a clear evidence of disagreement, he was completely overruled, even though the others didn't have strong feelings one way or the other. Sundberg's opinion was, well lets not do that now as we might have to take it away later and that is so much more difficult. Gee, Supervisor Sundberg advocating for less county give-away's, that is weird.
ReplyDeleteYes, and to your 5-0 point, despite this disagreement, apparently he still voted with the others on this one. (To your point, when the BOS votes I my head is usually in my hands weeping so I was not aware of all the 5-0 votes. I'll map out my point for you.) The devil is in the details. Each "binary" yes, I said it again vote is very specific. Much that goes into policy - like this precise and technical example that I have brought up at least 3 times now - is hidden within. Even though SML apparently ended up voting with the majority on the final language, there were signifcant policy changes bundled in that unanimous vote where there wasn't complete unanimity.
Also, I'm getting the feeling you have not watched that last meeting which would explain your block and divert comments.
My broader point is ... that was the one detail I was able to pick up. If the board had 3 SML, I think we would be getting more 3-2 votes because, as in this case, an attempt would be made toward public planning. I'd also mention that this one example was strictly an incentive - in other word's a give away.
"But okay, I can see that that conversation is kind of at a dead end."
Only in the sense I've left a bunch of more generalist items on the table which you choose to avoid.
"assume that if the board majority approves something, it must be lousy policy."
I know the policy to be either status quo or 10% less - (probably more) as evidenced by the general principles.
I tend to write on a stream-of-conciousness basis with your comments because I get so worked up by each sentence. It turns out this entire comment was a continuation of your last comment. We are not ever going to discuss anything except your brilliant obersvation about the 5-0 straw votes are we?
ReplyDeleteSo, I have one specific policy detail and one personal question up there for you to address - narrowed down from I don't know how many from previous posts. (Just remembered the Peter Childs letter - I'd love to get a response to that too)
And I finally got to the final sentence. We are the one's the one propagandizing. Wow.
Ok, moving forward. I disagree heartily with this statement "And I'm not talking about the Guiding Principles, which are basically a preamble," Even Supervisor Sundberg said at one point during the June 17th meeting that his direction on some matter was guided by the so-called pre-amble – actually they more discriptively could be called, hmmm - oh, guiding principles – but that is 2 more syables and many more keyboard punches. I noticed this because it was not clear to which preamble he was speaking of.
I also don't have to point out to you how important staff can be in the formulation of the specifics of policy and when they do make the decisions not directly addressed in the general plan, they look to the guiding princlipes. Finally, unlike you (and me for the time being) this is the only portion of the GPU that is accessable to the general public - (ie those outside of government and those with specific interests) This is significant because it is the public that votes. So for those 3 reasons I'd like to know your opinion on where the GP should go 1) as SEF ammended it 2) Where it was 3) Further in the direction of Mendo's principles or 4) somewhere between 1 and 2. If you'd like it to be between 1 and 2 I'd like to start discussing some options with you - especially as it effects urban planning. I'm really taking you at your word on your progressivism and I'm assuming you could help address some of my smart-growth concerns such as striving for denser population centers etc. (All this points made previously)
New Topic. Histrionic.
ReplyDelete"But I'll admit that I have never actually watched a full episode. So if that's not an accurate impression, and in fact there is very little histrionic behavior in that show, then I guess the use of the term would be inappropriate. Is that what you were getting at? You didn't really make clear what you thought made On the Media's use of "histrionic" a sexist use of the word."
UGGH! (expressed hystrionically) It doesn't matter if you've seen it or not. I've never seen it either. Look at the name. "Real Housewives". Look at the descriptor - "hystrionic". It may be because you don't have the full understanding of that word you do not understand that the show is probably not only about women, but it is about women being, you know, overly dramatic. That's what collects eyeballs - especially in reality TV overly dramatic actions - in this case of you know - women. Thus the precise descriptor. At least that's my assumption about the show is about.
This is my point and it goes directly to our discussion of the GPU. Like I told Bolitio yesterday in SP, this isn't about you and your perception of the GPU proceedings only (or you and your subjective view of the meaning of the word). This is an argument about what is happening objectively, not subjectively. I of course get that I am also coming at the issue subjectively. When we debate, hopefully based on the strength of our arguments, which are based on our understanding of the material as well as the precision of our language (among other things) we will at the end of this get a better understanding of what is going on. (Unless your sole objective is to persuade) This little argument shows me that you are not going to veer from your subjective perception of reality toward a more pertinent objective version of reality without -I don't know - a presentation worthy of oral arguments before the Supreme Court? On this specific example, histrionics, I am ready to present you that argument, because you are wrong and I can continue to prove it if you like. Or you could say,"maybe that word did imply a hint of sexism to a relatively sophisticated audience I didn't mean it that way" and use whatever you want to use. (I'm not asking you to say you are sexist as I've pointed out)
Then I would humorusly and generously say "I accept your apology" and move on.
But this highly illuminating discussion has already demonstrated to me your style of argument. Rather than taking my word for anything or giving it any meaning whatsoever, you would rather question the authority of a concessus of professionals – mind you by calling them "stupid". It has really been a fun and interesting ride to find out the simple truth that Cookie tried to tell me... TOA is... a little pushy. I think she said that about you, but it may have been just about longwind.
I've got another card in the deck if you want me to go there. I just did a quick search of "hystrionic" as used in the NYT archives. I could go through each one of the most recent of those uses with you next if you insist, or there is always the other option I layed out above, or something similar of your choosing.
ReplyDeleteTo review here is my original point...
Just a couple of quick points from a cursory reading of today's postings. Judy and histrionic? This is an epithet that definitely brings attention to Judy's gender. This is a trick I see on the right a great deal - the left isn't blameless - but much more on the right.
True now?
Here's your first reply....
It does? That's news to me. Are you sure you're not confusing it with "hysterical," which I am well aware IS a word that does have a gender-based origin?
"Wondering if the word had some relationship to gender, and with some trepidation at running the risk of being "pushy" and overly "authoritative" with my troubling habit of bringing up those pesky "fact" thingies."
Answer? Yes it does, and no I'm not an ignoramous (in this case -but I have been and will be again ). And you've also managed to prove my point about facts in the same quote – in this case your facts came from an insufficiently detailed free online search. And, you've managed to be "pushy" too by questioning my intelligence or literacy or something.
ReplyDeleteAnd after the fun trip to the APA here is your next money quote
So, anyway, thanks for bringing it to my attention, and I would just suggest that you should be aware that people using the word "histrionic" are not necessarily intending it as a sexist epithet, as indeed I was not.
My point? It doesn't matter what you think, you may not have all the information. It matters what your audience thinks – especially if your audience is right.
Having said all this, I want to point out that I am being hyper-sensitive. I totally acknowledge this. One of the reasons, other that those I've already mentioned is not that I question your perception of your politics you are right, this gets us nowhere. I want to bring attention to those little clues that give me another view of your perspective. Something that we all do when we see eachother in person – we have a general context of appearance – whether it is clothes, mannerisms, etc – the context adds understanding to the debate. This specific conversation on "hystrionic" is for me one of context as evidenced in my very bland very first comment about the word that I excised above.
I have to say it is also stuck in my head that the first time you used my pen name, like JW you didn't use the -ic. You appologized very generously, it's just a little catch for me. I'm not saying I doubt your progressive politics per-se, it just is a tiny tell that gives me a little context to our discussion. You know somethinglike what a good poker player would be looking for. I'm also still so confused about your numerous and triumphalist posts about HA's petition. As you know if you watched the last meeting, Rex was keen on making a joke about the Nepalese signees. Hmmmm. Why do you and Rex seem to be on the same page so often? Just sayin'. These are my little tells. And please don't be offended. It is just the nature of an online anonymous discussion.
Also, you are not the only one to miss the "ic". I just noticed the Humboldt Democratic Party business cards say "Democrat Headquarters" Makes me wonder if there wasn't a mole in the process of printing. I know I'm insane. BUT STILL......
Oh, yeah, if you could be so kind, please respond the the histrionic diversion after you give the actual conversation your full attention as I did. It would be much appreciated, because the histrionic bs is a diversion.
ReplyDelete"the histrionic bs is a diversion."
DeleteA diversion you created, and have insisted on pursuing.
I had already responded to your histrionic diversion above, but I'll post a link to it here, because it IS hard to find things in this thread (sorry, there doesn't seem to be a "recent comments" widget):
ReplyDeletehttp://indulgingdjsparanoia.blogspot.com/2013/07/here-you-goknock-yourself-out.html?showComment=1374162846677#c668428720931016645
By the way, it's "histrionic," not "hystrionic." Again, you seem to be confusing the root of "histrionic" with the root of "hysterical."
ReplyDeleteThanks professor TOA
Delete"I know the policy to be either status quo or 10% less - (probably more) as evidenced by the general principles."
ReplyDeleteCircular logic. I ask whether the actual policy provisions back up your interpretation of the Guiding Principles, and you say you "know" they do, because of your interpretation of the Guiding Principles. You're chasing your tail.
"TOA is... a little pushy."
ReplyDeletePretty ironic, coming from you, and even more ironic, given that you cite "Cookie."
Yeah, I may resemble that remark too. Luckily this is a monitor in front of me not a mirror.
ReplyDeleteSo, that artillery barrage you linked to has dampened our troops' moral quite a bit. I have send out some recognizance squads and get back to you.
Is that it for response on GPU and guiding principles? I'll get back to the diversion desert after the meat of the GPU discussion. Am I missing something? I'll assume for now you have more to say my GPU response later - let me know if you feel caught up.
Assuming I'm wrong and a GPU response is not forthcoming... Let me get this straight. We are not going to discuss the GP because I have not demonstrated to you actual policy provisions that show a conservative or property rights slant? Is that the gate I must enter to begin discussions on general principles? OK, start with the clustering policy I referred probably 4 times.
And also, please let me know if you did see or go to the entire last meeting. I'm curious not to judge your commitment as you did Cookie. I know we all have limited time. I need to know to see if we are on the same page. If you didn't go, you probably have no blanking idea what a quarter of my GPU-based comments are about. I do not have a working vocabulary for the Forestry Element nor do I have a great memory, so my often vague references in the GPU-comments may not be understandable to you if you did not attend.
Also curious of your opinion of that Peter Childs letter among all those other items that you seem to be skipping over unless I can meet your first challenge.
The reason I prefer to deal in specifics is that it's easy to trade contradictory generalities, but doing so rarely leads to anything beyond talking past one another, because one can always counter a generality with an opposing generality. Generalities are generally supported or refuted with specifics, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't able to make it to that most recent meeting -- the one where, according to the Redwood Times, every single straw vote was unanimous -- but I did watch/listen to most of it online (assuming we're talking about the same meeting). But I was doing other things at the same time, so I wouldn't doubt that I missed some of the subtleties of it. I haven't put aside the time to go back and listen to it straight through, with my full attention, because based on what I did hear, what I read in the Redwood Times, and what you've shared here, it sounds like there just wasn't really much in the way of controversy. I was pleased to hear that all 5 of the supervisors were able to reach consensus on almost everything that night. From my point of view, there's enough to worry about without obsessing over the details of provisions that all 5 supervisors appear to be O.K. with.
If I understand the "clustering" thing correctly, the idea is to give landowners a "density bonus" -- allow them to build more houses than they otherwise would be allowed to build -- IF they cluster these residences together. Is that correct? If so, that seems like a good idea to me.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're reporting that Lovelace wanted to give a somewhat larger density bonus -- more houses in the clustered area. Is that correct? If so, I don't really see how that would be an indication that the other supervisors were showing a "conservative / property rights slant" by not going along with that. If all they were concerned about was property rights and short-term, individual financial interests of landowners and developers, wouldn't they have been eager to allow as big a density bonus as possible, since allowing more homes would yield more benefit / profit for the landowner and/or developer? Am I misunderstanding the "clustering" program you were talking about? Or misunderstanding your argument? If either, please feel free to explain.
FYI,
A NTMP is a "Non-industrial Timber Management Plan." You can find a pretty easy-to-understand explanation here:
http://forestry.mcn.org/ntmps.html
Much more detailed info here:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/downloads/NTMPReport_FINAL_10.23.03.pdf
Yes, TOA. That is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you. So, SML wanted a somewhat larger bonus.
ReplyDelete"I don't really see how that would be an indication that the other supervisors were showing a "conservative / property rights slant" by not going along with that"
Ok.
If all they were concerned about was property rights and short-term, individual financial interests of landowners and developers, wouldn't they have been eager to allow as big a density bonus as possible, since allowing more homes would yield more benefit / profit for the landowner and/or developer?
Exactly.
Here is my point. SML was interested in changing the statute, if that is correct terminology, to a "somewhat larger - .5/1.5= 33% it could also be called "significantly larger" - bonus. This is what I would call a policy.
If all they were concerned about was property rights and short-term, individual financial interests of landowners and developers, wouldn't they have been eager to allow as big a density bonus as possible, since allowing more homes would yield more benefit / profit for the landowner and/or developer?
Again, exactly, you were asking me to point out a difference in policy, and there is one. I think it goes to the core of our difference. And you can play dumb with me if you like, but you know the difference. I'll spell it out. I want government to be empowered to help guide development. You would rather not. So even though the score was 5-0 down the line, there was an important policy difference that was swallowed by the simple yes/no votes you so correctly, accurately, and awesomely refered to. Despite my snark, did I get through the gate? Is that a proper answer to this challange? "I ask whether the actual policy provisions back up your interpretation of the Guiding Principles".
So here is a perfect example of where both sides would be happier. Government would create and incentive for there to be larger, uninterrupted forested areas - a benefit to society, both economically and environmentally, and property owners as you pointed out. As a progressive, you know we aren't really anti-property rights, we just want to be smart.
I think it would have been a smart policy. There was little discussion beyond Supervisor Sunberg's comment about not wanting to give up something as an experiment that the county might later have to rescind. It would be too difficult.
ReplyDeleteSo back to your challenge "I ask whether the actual policy provisions back up your interpretation of the Guiding Principles". I think that establishes one instance of policy difference despite the unanimity that you use as a rhetorical bludgeon.
Now, you have added another challenge. "I don't really see how that would be an indication that the other supervisors were showing a "conservative / property rights slant" by not going along with that"
Touche mon frere. You are correct. This is an example of the opposite in that sense. Please have SEF tell the Tea Partiers that next time she visits. But lets change the frame. What about the other binary -public power v. private power. This is the overarching frame - and as a progressive I know we are on the same side on this one. This is a clear case of what us progressives are talking about - a win/win.
There are other frames too - courageous v passive, thoughtful vs conservative, experimental vs status quo, what my monied overlords told me to do vs not knowing a blanking blank about anything.
Since you didn't go to the meeting. Just the fact you never let me know that until I asked the 3rd time tells me so much - I really don't care and don't hold it against you - I am just amazed that you will not show any side of you that you perceive as a weakness.
Back to my point, since you didn't go to the meeting, you might have missed a surreal moment while listening to the proceedings in the background. I can't even explain it, but it was wierd. SEF was going on about Ecological Services (oh, that remindes me - there is another policy difference I could use to get through the gate if you won't accept this one - we'll see)based on some random book and I mean she was really trying to explain the thing. It probably lasted less than a minute, but time seemed to slow down as it was just, off the wall an incomprehensible to me. Who cares what a book you have says, but she finds meaning in this and I found it fascinating. It brought me back to the moments when she was quickly describing how she produced the new set of Guiding Principles.
So can we move on to those yet? Did I make it through the gate?
BTW - I said .5/1.5 because SML wanted to increase it to 2 from 1.5.
ReplyDeleteGood morning and have a great day
ReplyDelete"SEF was going on about Ecological Services...based on some random book and I mean she was really trying to explain the thing. It probably lasted less than a minute, but time seemed to slow down as it was just, off the wall an incomprehensible to me. Who cares what a book you have says, but she finds meaning in this and I found it fascinating."
ReplyDeleteWhat you describe as "some random book," the Redwood Times describes as "a book called 'Forest Ecosystems' by David A. Perry, considered a definitive textbook for ecology students."
So in looking to come to an understanding of the terms "ecosystem values" and "ecosystem services" she turned to a book that is "considered a definitive textbook for ecology students." And you fault her for this because...why?
I'm onto your game now. Ha ha jokes on me.
ReplyDelete"Circular logic. I ask whether the actual policy provisions back up your interpretation of the Guiding Principles, and you say you "know" they do, because of your interpretation of the Guiding Principles. You're chasing your tail."
ReplyDeleteHere is my point. SML was interested in changing the statute, if that is correct terminology, to a "somewhat larger - .5/1.5= 33% it could also be called "significantly larger" - bonus. This is what I would call a policy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn the density bonus that would be granted for "clustering" homes in rural areas, it seems like a very minor difference to me. It sounds like all 5 supervisors agreed that the policy made sense and the only question was on what would be the optimum amount of additional units allowed with the density bonus.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that two things are being balanced -- (1) enough of a density bonus to give landowners enough of an incentive to want to utilize this provision, but at the same time, (2) not a lot more than needed to provide this incentive, because otherwise you're creating an ability to build more homes in rural areas, which, despite the clustering, still use water and have other impacts. If the size of the density bonus approved by the supervisors is adequate to provide the desired incentive, then great, you've achieved the goal of encouraging clustering new rural residences when possible, without creating more rural residences than needed to meet that goal. If not, the density bonus could be increased in the future to the level Lovelace advocated, or even beyond that.
It sounds like Sundberg's point was that it would be easier to increase, if need be, the density bonus (giving property owners increased rights) than it would be to decrease what is allowed (taking away rights). Seems like a very legitimate point to me, and a smart way to go about it. If the idea is to get to an optimal level that would provide the desired incentive, but not unnecessarily go too far past that optimal level, it makes sense to start with an amount that you think/hope will provide that incentive, then increase it only if needed.
Is the level of density bonus approved by the supervisors enough to provide the desired incentive? I don't know. Do you? Did Lovelace present evidence that the level approved by the other supervisors was insufficient, while the higher level Lovelace was advocating would be sufficient, and not unnecessarily excessive?
It seems to me that the bottom line is that all 5 supervisors were basically on the same page in terms of providing an incentive for rural landowners to cluster new housing when possible, and that there was only a minor difference in what to set the initial density bonus at and whether it would be better to start at the low end and increase if necessary, or start a bit higher, and potentially end up wanting to reduce the level later.
It doesn't at all sound like a disagreement between one side that only cares about private, individual, short-term financial interests, and another side that cares about public, collective, long-term ecological interests -- which is how you've tried to portray things.
It seems to me that the example you picked is actually a great example of how both "sides" are not really all that far apart at all -- and what's more, it clearly illustrates that the majority clearly are not just looking to maximize profits for "moneyed overlords."
I'm pretty sure I can mostly cut and paste from now on until I get a response to the challenges and questions you've put to me. I will try to remember not to be conversational as it tends to bring up differences in opinions and they can be dangerously distracting.
ReplyDeleteI slightly edited an earlier post
here is what it said to show you I'm not deleting anything significant..(assuming you trust that I reprinted the entire previous entry, which I am so sorry to say I am losing from my end)
I can cut and paste from now on I think until I get a response to some of your earlier questions to try to help move this forward. I will be very careful not to be conversational as it tends to bring up differences in opinions and they can be dangerously distracting.
I have to pull myself away now. I'll be back tomorrow am. That last post gives me something to work with. Thanks.
ReplyDelete"Also curious of your opinion of that Peter Childs letter among all those other items that you seem to be skipping over unless I can meet your first challenge."
ReplyDeleteI don't see a problem with it. The section of the existing General Plan he was referring to was Section 1500, having to do with public participation in updates to the Plan. He and Dan Taranto (and maybe the others he mentions) were involved in crafting that section way back when the last GP was created. He, and many others, felt that the current GPU process was not following the rules on public participation that were laid out in section 1500, and that staff was misinterpreting the intent of section 1500.
So he was requesting that they have an in-depth meeting on the subject, including some of the people who were involved in writing section 1500 in the first place, and therefore in a good position to speak to what the intent of the provisions in that section were. He asked for that meeting to include a "truly representative group" and suggested some people he thought should be "included." He did not say that the group should be limited to only those individuals. So I don't see a problem with his letter, or what he was asking for.
"I'm onto your game now. Ha ha jokes on me."
ReplyDeleteCryptic comments like this are not very helpful. You criticized Fennell for looking to "some random book" for a definition. I pointed out that it was not just "some random book," but in fact a "definitive text" on the subject in question. My "game" was simply to point out the difference between your claim that it was a "some random book" and the Redwood Times' explanation of why she was referring to that particular book. If you have a response to that, let's hear it. Otherwise, it seems as if your "game" was to dismiss a very reasonable,. very direct response to your point by posting a dismissive, cryptic reply. Not helpful.
DeleteThis whole episode in which they were sorting out the differences and relative merits of usign the term "natural resources values" vs. using the terms "ecosystem values" or "ecosystem services" seems to me like yet another example of the supervisors working well together to reach a consensus -- not ignoring Lovelace's concerns, but taking them seriously and looking to accommodate him and those he represents.
At you may recall, some of the supervisors had previously expressed concerns that the term "ecosystem values" seemed vague, and pointed out that it was not defined anywhere in the Planning Commission's draft version of the GPU. Someone (might have been the RLWG guy?) suggested substituting "natural resources values." There was some discussion as to whether "natural resources values" really captured the same meaning or not. So they asked staff to research the definitions of those terms with the idea of revisiting the issue in the next meeting, which is exactly what they did.
According to the Redwood Times:
"Staff researched the term 'ecosystems services' and recommended adopting the definition used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): '... the contributions that a biological community and its habitat provide to our day-to-day lives,' such as food, fiber, and water, as well as intangible goods like carbon sequestration, erosion control, recreation, and spiritual values.
Staff also provided a dictionary definition of the term 'natural resources values' as '... a material source of wealth, such as timber, fresh water, or a mineral deposit, that occurs in a natural state and has economic values.'
The board agreed to use both terms, substituting 'ecosystems services' for 'ecosystems values.' Both terms and their definitions will appear in the GPU's glossary section."
Seems like a very good outcome to me, and a good demonstration of the other 4 supervisors being very open to Lovelace's point of view, and willing to go along with his desire to include reference to the "ecosystem" and not just "natural resources," as long as the GPU included a definition of the term. Which thanks to their involvement, it now will. In other words we got a better result than we would have had if we just had Lovelace and 4 Lovelace clones on the BOS, and a better result than we would have had if we just had Bohn and 4 Bohn clones on the BOS. So I think it both demonstrates the value of having Lovelace in this discussion, and also demonstrates that the other 4 are more than willing to listen to his concerns and work hard to find consensus.
So, am I glad Lovelace is on the BOS. Yes, I am. Do I think Lovelace and 4 Lovelace clones would yield a good result? No, I do not. Do I think Bohn and 4 Bohn clones would yield a good result? No, I do not. Do I think the current make-up of the BOS does a pretty good job of representing the concerns of the majority of voters in their districts? Yes, I do. Do I think they are doing a pretty good job of using (in the words of the revised Guiding Principles) a "balanced approach" to craft a GPU that acknowledges both individual / economic / property rights concerns and collective / ecosystem / sustainability concerns? Yes, I do, at least from what I've seen so far. Do I think everything they're doing is 100% perfect? No, of course not. It's a democratic process, and necessarily involves some give-and-take, not a technocratic dictatorship that might yield a more "perfect" result -- if the technocratic dictator was "perfect" (which of course none ever are).
As Winston Churchill put it: "democracy is the worst form of government... except all the others that have been tried."
The "game" is the defense of the book seems more a diversion. I could argue the point, but I'd lose. Not because my observations didn't have merit, but because I would not be able to convince you they did. I am only commenting now to offer my apology for any offense to the cryptic comment which you found unhelpful.
DeleteI am going to try focus like a laser beam as I've already learned what is relevant from our histrionic kerfuffle (which I will respond to whence we have moved the main discussion forward) and I don't want to waste your time. And I appreciate the links to NTMP. This is only a reply to that first (white) 1031 post. The rest will come tomorrow.
Also, to add to the apology, I am a sucker for these diversions as I chase them with the vim and vigor of a kitten chasing chasing the previously mentioned laser. It was as much a reminder to myself as it was a comment to you.
Delete"The 'game' is the defense of the book seems more a diversion."
DeleteThe criticism of Fennell for looking for a definition in a book seemed like a diversion in the first place. But from the tone and content of your comment, you apparently attached some major importance to it. If not, I don't know why you brought it up in the first place. And now you're not willing to defend your point, and accuse me of "diverting" the discussion with my very concise and direct response. That's annoying, but, so be it. My response stands: She was not referring to "some random book." Lacking further explanation on your part, your criticism appears to be way off the mark. She was doing her homework.
You apparently not realizing what book she was referring to seems to have led you astray, and you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that it was just "some random book." Jumping to conclusions seems to be a chronic problem for you. Doing so and then, when your jumped-to conclusions are challenged, falling back on complaining about a "diversion" -- that you yourself created -- seems to have become something of a pattern here. If you can do a better job of focusing on what you think is most important, I'm all for that. It's hard for me to know what you think is a "diversion" and what you think is important, because some of what you think is important seems like not-very-important diversions to me, but when I don't answer those points, then you get all huffy about it and accuse me of ignoring those points.
Meanwhile, when I respond to other points, which by your tone and emphasis appear to me to be things that you seem to think are important, you complain that I'm wasting time with "diversions." This constant carping over what I should and shouldn't respond to comes across as very "pushy" indeed. Here's a "rule of thumb" that I will suggest: Don't make any points that you don't want a reply to. It sounds like it's your intention to go in that direction, and I hope you can do so.
"Also, to add to the apology, I am a sucker for these diversions as I chase them with the vim and vigor of a kitten chasing chasing the previously mentioned laser. It was as much a reminder to myself as it was a comment to you."
DeleteOkay, fair enough. I appreciate you taking a share of the blame for the "diversions." As expressed above, I was starting to get pretty frustrated with your complaints about which points I respond to or don't respond to, and the impugning of motives based on those choices. I think the key is to try to restrict yourself to arguments / discussion points that you're willing to hear replies to. I will try to do likewise.
While time constraints make it impossible to provide a point-by-point response to every single sentence you have written, I am trying to respond to points that I think are important, and also to respond to points that you have indicated, through emphatic language and/or repetition that you think are important -- even when in many cases, they seemed like rather unimportant or tangential points to me. I think I have been quite generous in that regard. So I am going to ask you, once again, to read and consider a response I gave to your insistent demands to tell you where I am "coming from" on these issues. For your convenience, I found it on SoHum Parlance and am re-posting it here. You've made quite a few very inaccurate guesses as to my motivations, political tendencies, etc., and I think we could avoid wasting time on at least some of these erroneous assumptions if you'd simply take the time to read and consider the answer I offered to a series of "where are you coming from" questions that supposedly were very important to you.
ReplyDeleteOkay, here it is, cut and pasted from SoHum Parlance:
DeleteWithout telling you my name or occupation (which is not developer or contractor or builder or anything else that has any kind of direct financial interest in the GPU) I will try to give you some idea where I’m coming from. In the past, I have lived in other parts of the country — urban, suburban, and rural — but have been living in Humboldt for many years now. I have been a paid and unpaid environmental campaigner in the past, but never a property rights campaigner or conservative activist, paid or unpaid. I own no TPZ land (or for that matter any other land to develop) and have no plans to. Where I live is a permitted dwelling on a legal parcel in an agricultural area, but not far from town. So I have no real financial dog in this fight.
I had been aware of some of the problems with the Planning Department going back many years, having heard plenty of horror stories of people being given the run-around on one thing or another, with different answers and seemingly made-up-on-the-spot requirements from different planning department staff (which, when challenged, sometimes proved to be without legal basis). But some years ago, it started to seem like more than a bit of random unprofessionalness, but rather part of a developing pattern. There was the TPZ moratorium, ostensibly to deal with the Maxxam bankruptcy plan, which then morphed into attempts to greatly restrict TPZ owners from being able to live on their own land. Then there was the (most recent iteration of) the Code Enforcement Fiasco, with out-of-control armed goon squads running rampant and terrorizing people over graywater systems and the like (and I watched as the previous Board of Supervisors made a big show of convening a Code Enforcement Task Force and then unceremoniously dumped its finding in the circular file, never to be seen again). In a less serious, but equally absurd case, there was the planning department staff member who insisted that a child’s tree house required a building permit (which created an outcry and apparently required a site visit from both the Planning Director and a County Supervisor to determine that — who would have guessed — a child’s treehouse did not require a permit). I watched as a loud and self-misinformed NIMBY group in Arcata freaked out over and destroyed a proposal by a well-respected, homegrown, good-neighbor business to locate a (gasp!) goat dairy on (gasp!) agricultural land!
(continued next post, due to Blogger's annoying character limits)
(Continued)
ReplyDelete"Meanwhile, somewhere back in there I became well acquainted with a number of people facing harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of the Planning Department even as they were trying to work with the system and do all that was asked of them. I personally know of two people who gave up on their plans to live on and farm their perfectly appropriate not-far-from-town farmlands, due to harassment and threats of legal action from well-heeled “progressive” NIMBY neighbors, accompanied by inconsistency / uncertainty from the planning deparment (ironically, both these people moved to more remote parts of the county to be away from that NIMBY pressure, exactly the opposite of what the Smart Growthers say they want). In one case the NIMBY harassment extended to holding a neighborhood meeting to excoriate the evil would-be farmers, and even extended to someone taking pictures through the window of their shed to show their children’s clothing hanging there — supposedly for the purpose of “proving” that they were illegally “residing” on their land while farming it, before having a legal residence there. (I’m not sure if it is creepier if the NIMBY photobug was sneaking up and taking the picture through their window at close range, or if they were using a long lens to take it from a distance…either way, pretty creepy).
I also have a good friend who owns a property of 200-some acres that has two longstanding main structures on it. In trying to do the right thing and get the structures permitted, he was told by the Planning Department that (for reasons they could not or would not document the basis of) he couldn’t have a residence and a mother-in-law unit on the parcel, and that he would have to rip the plumbing out of one of them in order to get a permit for the other one (and then, it was not-at-all-subtly hinted by a county official, once he had his permits and the Planning Department was no longer involved, as a practical matter there would be nothing to stop him from putting the plumbing back in the other structure, wink-wink). This, in my view, was just plain idiotic.
I could go on and on — all the people who bought perfectly legal parcels and then were told they were “shaded” on a map by some unidentified staffer for some reason that was never recorded anywhere, and that despite doing nothing wrong, they’d have to pay the county a bunch of money to investigate and “unshade” the parcel before they could even apply for a permit. And so on…
I don’t claim that all these issues and incidents were orchestrated, on purpose, by one cohesive group of people who were meeting secretly somewhere and coordinating an overarching campaign aimed at “stopping everything.” I haven’t met too many people, other than a few couch-surfing Earth Firsters, who would actually say that they are truly against any and all development. And I don’t even blame this all on one ideology — for instance from what I have heard, much of the opposition to the proposed wind farm on Bear River Ridge was not from progressives, but local conservatives. But there do seem to be enough people who are against anything new or different ever being done anywhere near them, that the cumulative effect threatens to become something approaching NIMBY gridlock.
At any rate, perhaps this gives you some idea where I’m coming from. I’m a reluctant proponent of property rights, having been dragged in that direction by a series of outrageous overreaches in the other direction. I think you would find a similar story from many folks who had become concerned with the behavior of the Planning Department and the direction that the previous Planning Director and previous Board of Supervisors had seemed to be headed.
I hope this helps to give you some kind of idea where I’m coming from."
I suspect that part of the difference in our respective points of view stems from the fact that you seem to have only recently started paying attention to land use and planning issues in Humboldt. If history had begun on June 2nd 2013, I can see how someone might not understand why there would be any need to make reference to a "balanced approach" in the Guiding Principles of the GPU, or to clarify that property rights would at least be taken into account.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding some of the incidents and dynamics leading up to where we are today might be helpful in understanding why many folks like myself, who do care about the environment, about collective interests, about long-term sustainability, who have no problem with the concepts of planning and zoning in general, nonetheless feel that the removal of Kirk Girard from his position as head of the Planning Department, the election of Estelle Fennell, etc., have been helpful to moving towards a more appropriate balance on land use issues. This may increase your understanding of where many of us are coming from, even if you don't agree with our point of view.
The basic dynamic that I'm describing is that overreach leads to backlash. Sometimes the backlashers end up overreaching too. Has the pendulum swung too far in the other direction? I don't see a lot of evidence for that, but voters will have a chance to weigh in on that in new supervisors' elections less than a year from now.
In any event, if you're not aware of the extent of the original overreach, the backlash may be baffling. That's what I'm trying to clarify for you -- how and why we got to where we are now. I hope this is helpful to you. If not, oh well, at least I've tried.
This is only a response to the SP comment. I have not read the latest comments, and don't want to because I'm sure I'll get upset and need to write more.
ReplyDeleteI learned from the King. (of diversion)
This is just a note for tomorrow's post to remind me. What about writing to our Supes about recommending the cluster policy.
ReplyDeleteTOA. That SP post wore me out. I will probably have to wait for tomorrow, I gotta get some work done today. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteI was right on the 3:02 post. Yesterday. I just got one sentence in and my blood started boiling. I gotta pull away and read the rest and respond tomorrow. Respect. *fist pump*
ReplyDeleteFocusing like a laser beam on policy.
ReplyDelete"It seems to me that two things are being balanced -- (1) enough of a density bonus to give landowners enough of an incentive to want to utilize this provision, but at the same time, (2) not a lot more than needed to provide this incentive, because otherwise you're creating an ability to build more homes in rural areas, which, despite the clustering, still use water and have other impacts."
"Is the level of density bonus approved by the supervisors enough to provide the desired incentive? I don't know. Do you?
No.
Did Lovelace present evidence that the level approved by the other supervisors was insufficient, while the higher level Lovelace was advocating would be sufficient, and not unnecessarily excessive?"
No, but clustering an important planning goal and in broad principles I am for increasing the incentive to 2.
Do we have to have evidence?
What evidence would you require for me to get you on board on this one? I'd be willing to try to write SML to see if he could get some relevant evidence information to you and SEF.
Yes, because SML believes this to be a worthy goal, because I trust his judgment on this issue - not because I am a camp follower - there is a difference.
I'm going to guess in broad principles you are against it. If not, I'd like to actually start talking to our Supervisors on this particular policy to see if we might be able to change it in the statute.
Are you planning on attending the meeting tomorrow?
Also, this is a relevant diversion. I'll write it and let you have the last word unless I need/want to respond or you have a follow up question.
Talk Shop 7/17/13. 7 min in. SEF...
"We definitely have climate change, we're not going to talk about what caused that but there is climate change"
She does believe the change is anthropocentric right? You do to right? I technically could agree with that statement, but I would wish (and vote)for a Supervisor who would at least say. "and it is caused by man. I understand that we disagree on this so I'll move on." It's important to shine the light of truth in darkness because we rarely get the chance.
Please let me know if there is something else in your posts I haven't addressed which you would like to be addressed.
BTW, I still haven't totally conceded the point on histrionic yet, but I not willing to take the time to go through and rebut the evidence you presented, at least not today and probably not until we get further along in actual policy/principle debates related to the GPU.
About half way through that last post I start a short paragraph with "Yes, because SML"
ReplyDeleteI don't know what question I was answering. It's difficult to edit properly in the tiny box that blogger gives you.
"You've made quite a few very inaccurate guesses as to my motivations, political tendencies, etc."
ReplyDeleteThe basis for these assumptions was you're effusive support for the quintile chart. And I don't think you have ever really said, but I am led down the path to assume you consider yourself a progressive.
The reason I am making false assumptions is you are leading me like cattle through the pre-slaughter maze. I went back through both your long "goon"* post (I think that's the exact word where I stopped reading carefully to reference the earlier SP comments) above and the anti- pro- post and noticed that you never really defined yourself.
So here is a specific question. Please use what you feel to be the most descriptive political modifier to use before the noun "friend" as I did yesterday. The most descriptive would be the party you register with (or no party). I made an assumption yesterday and it may be inaccurate. If you don't want to divulge registration information, again please use the most descriptive non-registration political one word political modifier you would use to describe yourself to someone who was wondering where you stood politically.
I'm going to extrapolate and assume since you don't like slogans, (I think you said that) you probably resist labels too. But please try to answer the above question. It will help to direct the conversation, as you have noted, it would end those inaccurate diversions. I also think this resistance to describe yourself may be because you think it will weaken your argument. I think I have demonstrated that I will converse with you in good faith no matter your registration or politics. For the record, I would consider you less of a opponent of my views if you were a Republican, if that makes any sense.
* I think you were being histrionic here, and it is so hard to read the rest because it reads like an HOJ backstabbing post in that I'm only getting one side of the story. If there is something significant in there that you want me to know and debate, you are going to have to extract the quote.
Oh, and for the record, if you ever have used the word "goon" to describe a public official, no matter how offensive, militant, etc. Then yes, I would categorize you as anti-government. It's that laser pointer again, - I can't help but address these absurd contradictions in your tone/politics.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is relevant because it goes directly to the same absurd contradictions I deal with when I have to deal with SEF as a Democrat.
I don't know how important the clustering density thing is, but I wrote SML on it and he didn't encourage or discourage me, he just said we should talk to our supervisors. So, I bet I could convince Supervisor Bass, I'll try to convince you next and maybe you could talk to Supervisor Fennell.
ReplyDeleteHere is a cut and paste from above.
What evidence would you require for me to get you on board on this one? I'd be willing to try to write SML to see if he could get some relevant evidence information to you and SEF.
Yes, because SML believes this to be a worthy goal, because I trust his judgment on this issue - not because I am a camp follower - there is a difference.
I'm going to guess in broad principles you are against it. If not, I'd like to actually start talking to our Supervisors on this particular policy to see if we might be able to change it in the statute.
Here is SML responce.
Thanks, Jon. The clustering idea will have to be more fully developed as a program that will then come back before us at some point. We have just provided some basic parameters for it at this point. We will have another opportunity to consider modifications to it at that time, which realistically might be a year or more in the future. Since we have only been taking 'straw votes' at this point, we could conceivably bring this back before the GPU comes up for a final, binding vote. While the process continues to be somewhat in flux, I am imagining that we may develop a 'short list' of policies that some of us would like to revisit. If this policy is one you would like to see reconsidered, then I would encourage you to talk to other Supervisors.
Mark
You know the policies well, are there others that you would recommend to me that we could address in the forestry element that would be an example of smart government, smart growth?
ReplyDeleteCause that goon post makes me think you'd really like to keep government out of this - if not, if that side of you that appreciates the quintile graph appreciates the fact we are going to need a smart and strong government - well then let's get to work!
See, once we start disagreeing we can actually get some stuff done. Or is it all about the disagreeing to you?
Nine days since your last post. Are you done? Just when we started to talk about the policy differences and even better yet maybe started talking about changing a policy in a way that satisfies both of our interests? To quote your last post "folks like myself, who do care about the environment, about collective interests, about long-term sustainability, who have no problem with the concepts of planning and zoning in general"
ReplyDeleteOnce the distractions are gone, there isn't much to talk about is there?
Here is another quote from you.
Given this problem, I guess the best thing I can do is try not to be distracted and just look for the opportunities for the deeper conversations, in hopes that you’ll turn you attention, at least from time to time, away from the Straw Man and toward those, like myself, who aren’t fueled by strictly selfish motives, and yet still have a different take than you on some issues. In that spirit, I will repeat something I posted yesterday:
“Clustered living, whether in a rural village, small town, or city, can offer many advantages, ecological, social and otherwise. I’m not against it at all. Most people don’t especially want to live in remote rural areas, don’t have any intention to, and never will. The reality is that most folks are choosing between urban settings and suburban settings, not between urban settings and remote rural settings.”
Here is a chance to prove your point.
Sorry for the delay in responding, and the lack of notice that there would be a delay. I was out of town for a few days, and busy before and after. I thought I would have internet access where I traveled to, but I didn't.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a strong opinion on whether the density bonus for the rural residence "clustering" incentive program would be better if it was at the level Lovelace was asking for, because I haven't heard any information on why he thinks that higher level is needed.
What evidence would I want to hear? Well, the ideal thing would be if he/you could show me that similar programs have been tried elsewhere but few participated when the density bonus was at the level currently approved by the majority in their straw vote, whereas many more participated when the density bonus was at the level Lovelace was asking for -- that would certainly be very compelling evidence.
If no evidence along those lines exists, then it would be nice to have at least some kind of explanation from Lovelace as to why he thinks the level of density bonus approved by the other Supervisors is insufficient.
Lacking a persuasive argument to that effect, I'm not sure what would be wrong with trying it at the level approved by the majority, seeing whether that provides enough incentive to encourage people to participate, and then increasing the density bonus if necessary.
"Oh, and for the record, if you ever have used the word 'goon' to describe a public official, no matter how offensive, militant, etc. Then yes, I would categorize you as anti-government."
ReplyDeleteThat makes no sense. If someone acts like a goon, then referring to them as a goon is simply an accurate description of their behavior. This is true whether they are a "public official" or a private citizen. Not wanting your public officials to act like goons is not "anti-government," it's anti-goon.
My reference to "out-of-control goon squads running rampant and terrorizing people over graywater systems and the like" was in relation to the Code Enforcement debacle of a few years back, which included the notorious code enforcement "raid" in Trinidad consisting of more than a dozen heavily armed officers clad in full "tactical" gear, some carrying assault weapons, and one of whom pointed their gun at a mom and her young boy and the infant child she had in her arms, all over some extremely minor and not at all health or environment threatening "code violations."
The young boy was quite traumatized, as was his mother, and other folks treated similarly by the "code enforcers." When "public officials" start pointing guns at an unarmed mom and her small children, storming homes with SWAT-team type forces and tactics, pepper spraying dogs, shouting at and bullying unarmed people who were threatening no one and who were not even alleged to have committed any crimes -- all over some pretty minor alleged code violations -- I would say that referring to those engaging in those behaviors as "out-of-control goon squads" is actually quite mild and restrained.
I suspect if this happened to someone you knew and cared about, you might find similar words, or perhaps even harsher ones, to describe those public officials engaged in the goonish behavior. Would that make you "anti-government?" No, it would make you anti-goon.
In case you somehow managed to miss this whole episode (at times I begin to wonder whether you just moved here a few months ago, as you seem to be surprisingly unaware of the series of events that led up to the recent BOS elections), and you think I'm somehow just making it all up:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/codes-damned-codes/Content?oid=2126751
Again, I am not pro-government (in favor of government) or anti-government (opposed to government), I am in favor of government doing helpful, constructive, appropriate things -- and opposed to government doing counterproductive, destructive, inappropriate things.
And no, I don't now, nor ever will, place public officials -- or for that matter wealthy businesspeople, or high-level church officials, or four star generals, or anyone else -- up on a pedestal where "no matter how offensive, militant" they are, they cannot be criticized in blunt terms. There is a scholarly term for people who insist that we should be duty-bound to treat perceived authority figures with extreme deference regardless of "how offensive, militant" these authority figures are. That term is "authoritarian follower." Please don't be one.
"So here is a specific question. Please use what you feel to be the most descriptive political modifier to use before the noun "friend" as I did yesterday. The most descriptive would be the party you register with (or no party)."
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, I am not registered as a member of any political party, my most recent party affiliation was as a Democrat, before that I was registered for a decade or so as a Green, and, before that, was registered for many years as a Democrat.
I consider myself progressive, pragmatic, and independent. Dogmatic, doctrinaire libertarians seem every bit as ridiculous to me as dogmatic, doctrinaire authoritarians.
"For the record, I would consider you less of a opponent of my views if you were a Republican, if that makes any sense."
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't.
If you are interested, I recommend checking out today's Krugman column in the NYT. It is pertinent to the GPU, smart growth and the economy. He links to an in-depth article on upward mobility in the US by county that NAN linked to earlier when you were gone. Just FYI.
ReplyDeleteI'm tired TOA, and I'm running into time issues - I have to budget it better than I have been. There is a bunch of interesting topics for debate on the table, but I need to focus on the GP for now. Here is a list of some topics I'd like to discuss further with you in the future. a) SML money v. SEF money. Compare and contrast b) Individual interests vs collective interests as they relate to our property line c) pro-government and authoritarianism are just a few that come to mind.
I've learned that I am not going to budge your opinion an iota, and while I appreciate all the information about your background and why you have the views you do, I'm still left in the position of disagreeing with you on almost every count. I think you would argue this is because I am not as informed as you are and prone to emotionalism. I wouldn't disagree. But there is the difference. I am forthcoming in admitting weakness, you are not. It makes for a one sided argument which I will lose every time if my goal is to move, an iota, your point of view. (Why do I continue to subject myself to this? Because you are a good foil or sounding board for my arguments.)
In the end you are arguing for status quo as represented in the mostly 5-0 Element straw votes and the 4-1 approved GP. I'm trying to pull us back to the pre straw vote GP, and realize that the Elements' wordings are either a) largely already baked in the cake as evidenced by the current GPU language and the assorted working groups and staff that have come up with alternatives or b) beyond my reach in time and energy to do anything about (ie clustering).
(editor's note: sorry for these consecutive a,b sentences)
It's difficult for me because a) I am not a huge fan of the pre-straw vote GP and b) I have the feeling the majority will require the same amount of evidence that you require for the clustering policy to add each smart-growth oriented modifying word. In other words, it is a losing battle, and I don't have the time or energy to invest. I think this is why so many people who agree with me in principle have given up. I spoke with an Arcata Democrat during the last meeting and he just wanted to get this done. Because of the length of the process and that it demonstrated to people that government couldn't function.
"For the record, I would consider you less of a opponent of my views if you were a Republican, if that makes any sense." "It doesn't."
ReplyDeleteThis is why... While I disagree more with Rob Arkley specifically and Republicans and Tea Partiers more generally on more issues that I do with you (in general), there the debate is public and understandable. When arguing with you and by proxy SEF, the debate, well there is no debate (yes dispite these 46 pages). I have no idea why those GP's were decimated other than she and SRB decided they were a good representation of chapter 1.4. When I bring this up, well, you and I both know where the conversation leads - see above.
"So, am I glad Lovelace is on the BOS. Yes, I am. Do I think Lovelace and 4 Lovelace clones would yield a good result? No, I do not. Do I think Bohn and 4 Bohn clones would yield a good result? No, I do not. Do I think the current make-up of the BOS does a pretty good job of representing the concerns of the majority of voters in their districts? Yes, I do. Do I think they are doing a pretty good job of using (in the words of the revised Guiding Principles) a "balanced approach" to craft a GPU that acknowledges both individual / economic / property rights concerns and collective / ecosystem / sustainability concerns? Yes, I do, at least from what I've seen so far. Do I think everything they're doing is 100% perfect? No, of course not. It's a democratic process, and necessarily involves some give-and-take, not a technocratic dictatorship that might yield a more "perfect" result -- if the technocratic dictator was "perfect" (which of course none ever are). "
"And no, I don't now, nor ever will, place public officials -- or for that matter wealthy businesspeople, or high-level church officials, or four star generals, or anyone else -- up on a pedestal where "no matter how offensive, militant" they are, they cannot be criticized in blunt terms. There is a scholarly term for people who insist that we should be duty-bound to treat perceived authority figures with extreme deference regardless of "how offensive, militant" these authority figures are. That term is "authoritarian follower." Please don't be one. "
Maybe from your perspective SML's votes and my opinions truly representative of an authoritarian follower and technocratic dictatorship. If they do than I am not doing a suffient job of arguing my point of view. I think however, that you don't necessarily believe that. It is more of a useful debating and political technique to paint your opponent as extreme. Completely analagously to when Rob Arkely got on KINS last month and refered to SML and his comrades. (Do I do it to when I question your background? Arguably so. (But I would disagree because I have always said that I think their point of view is valid, just wrong) )So in the end this is why you are a more important opponent. Whatever classification you want to use, Democrats, progressives, Greens - we are not unified and do not communicate. We are divided which means the other, well defined opponent whose views are anethema to a significant majority, their views and policies will carry the day.
ReplyDeleteAdd to that local officials within the Democratic Party who are possibly genuinely repulsed by many Republican views but agree with the locally significant property right's views as represtented by HumCPR, Arkeley, Republican party, well then, people who are trying to address issues that Paul Krugman brings up in his column today are kinda screwed. So, I look forward to more dialog here and on the figurative campaign trail in the months and years to come, I have a feeling we will often be backing different candidates, which unfortunately will be a huge detriment to the principles Party's we both have affiated with either today or in the past.
Again, if there is something you would like me to address or discuss, let me know (I'll be checking IDJP for a couple of weeks). For now I'm going to focus on GP issues until the Sept 23rd meeting. So, I'll check this blog out to see if there is anything else you want to address. Given our differences and our extensive posts, I think this is a good resource to have for the inevitable SP disagreements going forward. My policy will be to always let you have the last word and move here after a response or two. Maybe when the GP is done, and you are interested we could follow up on some of the dead ended disagreements.
No, I don't think your views in general qualify you as an authoritarian follower, I was referring specifically to your implication that public officials should never be referred to in a bluntly critical fashion "no matter how offensive, militant, etc." That came across as a bit like the words of an authoritarian follower.
ReplyDeleteI'm neither surprised, nor upset that reading through my "where I'm coming from" post did not persuade you to adopt my point of view on the current GPU process -- I didn't really expect it to. As I said in introducing it here on this blog:
"Understanding some of the incidents and dynamics leading up to where we are today might be helpful in understanding why many folks like myself, who do care about the environment, about collective interests, about long-term sustainability, who have no problem with the concepts of planning and zoning in general, nonetheless feel that the removal of Kirk Girard from his position as head of the Planning Department, the election of Estelle Fennell, etc., have been helpful to moving towards a more appropriate balance on land use issues. This may increase your understanding of where many of us are coming from, even if you don't agree with our point of view."
This little cul de sac on the information superhighway came about in part because you seemed unable/unwilling to believe that someone like me could exist and hold the opinions on the GPU that I do, and yet not be a paid shill, or Tea Partier, or secret Rush Limbaugh worshipper, or whatever. If you can now accept that I am sincere and genuine, and that at least some of those who you find yourself disagreeing with in the GPU debate are coming from a similar place -- and are not all just cartoonish, Tea Partyesque characters -- then from my point of view that's forward progress. And if so, I think that's actually at least as beneficial to you as it is to me.
Was it worth all this time and effort? Probably not. But, you know, what the heck. I do feel like I have a little better idea of where you're coming from, and at least some hope that you have a little better idea where I'm coming from. Oftentimes, that's the best anyone can realistically hope for in this kind of discussion.
Agreed(ish).
ReplyDeleteNice TOA.
ReplyDelete"Couldn't disagree more" was perhaps overly emotional and overstating my case. It was an in-artful phrase I threw out there because I had something else on my mind. You make valid and correct point.
"Are you sure you’re not just being reflexively disagreeable?" Perhaps I am. I still think that approaches hypocrisy on your first rule of debate "all I ask is for people to engage in good faith, rather than with ad hominem attacks".
I want to engage other people in this debate. I don't want to dominate it. I certainly don't want to start another bout of attacking each other's motives, authority, etc. Cookie made her point, I made mine and you made yours. Seems fair. Once other's start adding their opinions, I will feel more open to contributing more by parsing, etc. I would rather parse our (TOA and DJ)'s disagreements in here. BTW, I'm not doing this to hide, I'm happy to have this blog read by others and have advertised it more than once.
To your question...
My preference would be to use both terms, perhaps something along the lines of “Protect natural resources, especially…fisheries habitat, including salmonid habitat.” That way the support for protecting fish other than salmon would still be there, but the protection for salmon would still be emphasized as well. What do you think?
I don't disagree with having both. I support a sustainable fisheries industry (as I do a sustainable developer and forestry industry) and notice that in the public comment period the fisheries industry rep was against the changes. I think having both fisheries and salmonids seems fair as it addresses the fish as an important resource, but also important for their intrinsic value.
In order of increasing "I couldn't disagree more" to decreasing disagreement here is a listing of my opinions of each one of your points.
Disagree most (1)=(5)>(drops off significantly)(2)> (3)and >(4) Do not disagree
Also, "I couldn't disagree more" appropriately addresses the fact you didn't even address half of my comment. ie on moving the GP in the other direction, from status quo to more pro-planning. ie natural resources to ecosystem values.
ReplyDeleteMy post has six references to "ecosystems" your only reference is to ecologically beneficial.
I have one non-quote reference to natural resources, you have six.
In that subliminal sense, perhaps that phrase has more resonance.
I don't expect you to agree, but a non-mention is often just as important as directly addressing an argument.
"I think having both fisheries and salmonids seems fair as it addresses the fish as an important resource, but also important for their intrinsic value."
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding. Glad you agree on this one.
I'm not surprised you most strongly disagree on (1) and (5), and that you somewhat disagree on (3). I'm a little surprised you disagree at all on (2), if indeed you do. I think I can probably guess your general point of view on (1) and (5), and maybe on (3), but I'm having trouble imagining where you disagree on (2), so if you're willing to take a moment to elaborate on that I'd be interested.
[Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to hear your responses to (1), (3), and (5) too, if you feel like it -- but I suspect that at least on (1) and (5) it would probably jut be re-hashing points we've each already made. Whereas on (2) I'm not sure where the disagreement might arise.]
I think the discussion about "natural resource values" vs. "ecosystem services" is a very useful one, and I agree that there is certainly a meaningful distinction between the two (as well as, of course, a whole lot of overlap between the two).
ReplyDeleteAs you may recall, some of the supervisors had previously expressed some concern that "ecosystem services" might not be well-defined enough to include in GPU language. But Lovelace in particular made what I thought was a very reasonable argument as to the importance of including this term if possible, and the supervisors asked staff to look into how it might be defined, and if I'm recalling correctly, I think it was staff that came back with the NOAA definition. And with that the supervisors reportedly agreed to use both terms (both "natural resource values," and "ecosystem services") in the GPU, and to include definitions in the glossary of the GPU. It's not clear to me which term would be used where -- and maybe that hasn't been decided yet.
So it seems that they are open to the use of the term "ecosystem services" within at least some of the actual specific policy provisions of the GPU. And given that this is the case, it seems like they should be open to the idea of including this term in the Guiding Principles as well.
As you may recall, in the pre-June 3rd version of the Guiding Principles, the term "ecosystem services" was not used, only the phrase "natural resources" was used -- though the term "ecosystem services" (or was it "ecosystem values?") was used in some of the actual policy provisions. So the "status quo" was to make reference to both, but only in the body of the GPU, not in the Guiding Principles section, where only protection for "natural resources" was mentioned.
If you think it's important to make reference to "ecosystem services" within the Guiding Principles section, and perhaps also to consider using a different definition than the NOAA definition, then I would encourage you to come up with your best one to two minute "elevator pitch" for that, and in particular, to suggest actual substitute wording. My guess is that your best chance would probably be to ask them to add a reference to "ecosystem services" alongside "natural resources" rather than asking them to substitute one term for the other.
So, perhaps something like...
"...protect natural resources and ecosystem services, especially by protecting open space, water resources, water quality and fisheries habitat, including salmonid habitat, in cooperation with state and federal agencies. "
The reason I mentioned the importance of coming up with your best "elevator pitch" for this, is because you generally only get 3 minutes of comment time, and I'm guessing you'll want to make points on some of the other aspects of the Guiding Principles, too. So conciseness will be important, if you want to get across as much as possible in your brief time at the podium.
ReplyDeleteOf course if you can co-ordinate with others who share your views, you can each make some supporting points that back up the main point -- but it still helps if each of these folks can summarize the main point, too. Even better if a number of folks can all express support for the specific language you're proposing.
One more thing to keep in mind in terms of presentation -- which you probably already know, but seems worth highlighting anyway -- while you only get 3 minutes of comment time at the hearing itself, you can certainly meet with some or all of the supervisors between now and then, and/or call and/or write to them, and share your request and supporting arguments in much greater detail that way -- and also listen to their perspective so that you can tailor your testimony accordingly.
Also, you can offer written testimony to go along with your public comments at the hearing. I believe as long as you bring at least one copy of your written remarks, staff will put it in the record. But if I recall correctly, if you bring at least "X" number of copies (you'll have to check and ask how many are needed), they can be handed around to all the Supervisors and staff so that you can refer to them as you make your verbal presentation. It may also be that as long as you send your written comments in "X" number of days ahead of time (again, you'll have to check on this) staff will provide them to the Supervisors in advance of the hearing. I'm not 100% sure about that, though, but if you call the office of your own supervisor, they should be able to confirm what the best way is to go about that.
As long as I'm providing unsolicited (and perhaps unnecessary?) advice, I'll add a quick word on content. And that is simply this: Long accusatory rants that impugn the motives and/or character of some of the supervisors will probably be counterproductive, whereas concise, constructive arguments, including specific suggestions on the alternative phrasing you'd like to see (and, briefly, why) will have the best chance of being adopted.
ReplyDeleteIf you've already met with some or all of the Supervisors individually, or talked with them on the phone, or corresponded with them by mail or e-mail, and have listened carefully to their initial reactions to your requests and make a point of directly addressing any concerns/reservations they may have, that approach tends to be especially well-received.
Finally, it occurs to me that one of the easiest-to-explain arguments (and perhaps one of the strongest arguments) for including the term "ecosystem services" in the Guiding Principles is that the Supervisors have apparently already agreed -- unanimously -- to include that term in some of the language of the actual policy provisions in the body of the GPU, as well as to include a definition of "ecosystem services" in the glossary.
In other words, rather than simply complaining that it's not currently in the Guiding Principles (and remember, it wasn't in there even before the pre-June 3rd revisions), thank them for including that term elsewhere in the GPU and point out that including a mention of it in the Guiding Principles would be consistent with that.
And now one final thought: When dealing with abstract concepts like "natural resource values" and "ecosystem services" it's always helpful to have a number of concrete examples of what these abstract concepts translate to "on the ground." And in this case, it will probably be especially useful to have some examples of important things that fall under the definition of "ecosystem services," but aren't covered by the definition of "natural resource values." It might be helpful a couple of these items are ones that are related to, as you put it, "human values," in addition to a couple of items that are more along the lines of "intrinsic value," in other words, a healthy ecosystem for the sake of lifeforms other than our own and other than those we depend on directly. Salmon for salmon's sake, so to speak.
Anyway, those are some thoughts, which I can only guarantee are worth no less than you paid for them (nothing).
FYI, I'll be out and about all day tomorrow and into the evening, so there's a good chance I won't have the opportunity to read any responses you may have until the day after tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteWow. My mind is duly blown. Thank You, A Lot. That is worth more than nothing, I can tell from your knowledge and business-like writing that you are professionally involved somewhere related to something and that is obviously professional AND valuable advise and I will use it. Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteand more later.
You say Shatner, I say Streep. She nailed it. It was a (a) hijacking done with the (b) power of 4-1 board earned with (b.1)smoke-and-mirrors, (c) grabbed over the weekend and they were (d) caught red handed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, let's say you were a speech writer for Rand Paul when he famously addressed the NAACP earlier this year. You come to a point in the speech where your first instinct is to use "niggardly", would you give that word choice a second thought?
Here is SEF's explanation of the changes. If this isn't a hijacking of how many person-hours of work by staff and citizens, then I wouldn't know how to use that word to make an analogy. The power grab here is also frightening if you pay attention to what she is saying. We have the authority to do this because we are the Supervisors. We have given you one meeting and the time required by law to do this. We are going to finish this up today. Thank you for your input.
ReplyDeleteSo I just want to say again I really really appreciate hearing the discussion today…..As part of Chapter one. The board of supervisors has sole responsibility and authority to adopt the general plan as the county statement of public policy and land use. So that is the bottom line. But, it goes on to say the board is required by law to hold at least one public meeting (laughs). I think we covered that one. We’ve had these guiding principles before us for a while. They were discussed at one point during the planning commission meetings and there was some new principles added in there was…supplied by the section 1500 group of which I was a member and I really appreciate that. Just a few things that were a little concerning to me. Now when I look at section 1-4, chapter 1.4 guiding principles, if you look at the preamble. Before you see all the principles and then you look at Supervisor Bohn and I have put together, you will see that everything that is in there is covered in those principles. So all we are trying to do is make this work for the majority, for the whole and we really, I personally would like to say, appreciate the input from the committee to fine tune that, but I think we’re pretty close and I’d like us to get there, if we can today.”
Well now you're making the same arguments here and on SoHum Parlance, and I don't feel like having to make the same response in two different places. So I'm just going to respond to you over at SoHum Parlance.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I'm glad you found my above advice helpful. It was offered in the spirit of "even if we don't agree on everything -- and even if we disagree strongly on some things -- I sincerely want to see you making your best arguments, and I want those arguments to be heard as clearly as possible."
In that same spirit, I would just like to repeat this piece of advice:
Long accusatory rants that impugn the motives and/or character of some of the supervisors will probably be counterproductive, whereas concise, constructive arguments, including specific suggestions on the alternative phrasing you'd like to see (and, briefly, why) will have the best chance of being adopted.
While I appreciate that I'm seeing some of the latter in some of your comments, I'm disappointed that there's still so much of the former. That, of course, is your prerogative. But I don't think it's really helping anyone, least of all your own cause.
See you over at SoHum Parlance.
Yeah, I have another rule, I get an idea a day on Sohum, and I thought that that last one was so important, it counted as my idea of the day.
ReplyDelete"So I'm just going to respond to you over at SoHum Parlance."
You did the right thing. I have no problem with that.
Long accusatory rants that impugn the motives and/or character of some of the supervisors will probably be counterproductive, whereas concise, constructive arguments, including specific suggestions on the alternative phrasing you'd like to see (and, briefly, why) will have the best chance of being adopted.
I hear you. But I'm caught in this place where I really believe what I'm writing. I'm trying to do the best I can and although it may not be apparent to you here, trust me, I am a little more careful when dealing with my supervisors. Remember I have those 3 minutes and I have the 3 minutes during the HCDCC meetings too.
It's a question of there being a time and place for everything. At Sohum and here I'm going to be a little different than when speaking directly to SVB, but I am ok with her reading all of my posts too. We are all adults, and I really do try to call it as I see it.
I still owe you an explanation to #7, so I'm falling behind. I also thought it was better to make the call on the general principles first, I'm not sure why SML disagreed. Was is there a tactical reason? I remember SRS once refering directly to the GP to back up an opinion of his, was he speaking or the planning commission or current GP? I don't know.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't think the Sept 23 meeting is a direct result of the public outcry you are either a) fooling yourself, or b) trying to fool me. SEF wanted those GP to be in the books with as little public input as possible.
Clenenden's term lasts however long it lasts. Yes, get it done, or change the policy to have the Supervisor's take their position the day after the election. You are concerned with the consituents as represented by the 2012 vote, I'm concerned by the consituents as represented by the earlier one.
"Clenenden's term lasts however long it lasts. Yes, get it done, or change the policy to have the Supervisor's take their position the day after the election."
ReplyDeleteSo when the previous majority was still in office, you were all "get 'er done!" but now that they're not, you're all "slow down, or else you're guilty of a 'power grab'" Hmmmm.
Exactly. There is policy, and politics. Sometimes in order to get policy done, you have to play politics. I know, you and me TOA, we are idealists. For us it's just about the principles never about the politics or tactics. But sometimes, there are others out there who will do anything, say anything, to get things done their way.
Delete"If you don't think the Sept 23 meeting is a direct result of the public outcry you are either a) fooling yourself, or b) trying to fool me. SEF wanted those GP to be in the books with as little public input as possible. "
ReplyDeleteThe Sept 23rd meeting is a direct result of the Supervisors saying they'd be willing to hold such a meeting if people wanted to, and people letting them know they wanted to, and the supervisors keeping their promise to hold the meeting if asked to.
So, yes, in that sense, if there had been no "outcry" they wouldn't have bothered putting this on the agenda for Sept. 23rd, making a point of doing it as an evening meeting where perhaps more people can attend, etc. Since what you were asking for was something the supervisors had already signaled their willingness to do, it should not come as a surprise that they would easily agree to it.
If it's somehow important to you to insist on a "caught red-handed and forced to capitulate" narrative, well, I guess you're free to make that interpretation...it seems a bit silly to me, but whatever. I'm much more interested in whether the input on the 23rd will be constructive and to the point, or whether it's just going to be more hyperbole, attacks on the motives of the supervisors, and hypocritical demands to slow down the process by the same people who just a year ago, when the outcome of that process seemed likely to be more to their liking, were insisting that there had already been more than enough public input on the GPU and that the whole thing could and should be wrapped up by the end of 2012, recent election results be damned.
Don't worry, on the 23rd, I'll be on my best behavior. (Assuming I have the back bone to even say anything) Until then - no promises.
DeleteYou are really good at repeating arguments over and over, I guess I am too- but I think you are better.
Your favorite tactic is to call out the emotionalism. I really love that one. It's effective too.
"Would that have been more “democratic,” Jon?"
ReplyDeletedemocratic maybe. I'm fighting for Democratic values. We also care about the fact this is a democratic Republic. Like I wrote earlier, in SoHum, I think in a conversation with Jane while you were gone, I am not an advocate of majority rules on matters of regional planning. It's more complicated. It's only democratic if we start asking our children, their children, the trees and salmon, etc to vote too. I'm talking about Democratic values like transparency and accountability as well as democratic values as giving the citizens their say and input.
The current Representatives in Congress were not here when Social Security was passed. Should they get a chance to repeal it? Same with Obama Care.
The truth is yes they could. Would they do it, no because we as a people understand it would destroy the country as we know it. Even though there are many Republicans whose rhetoric and idea of government has no place for Social Security. To them it is unconstitutional.
Same thing with the Arcata Recycling Center. I don't know how much it cost, but I'm going to assume a bunch of tax-payer money went into it. Guess what, a series of votes by a tax-party powered City council allowed it to wither and die. Now some private interest is going to be able to use that amazing complex for pennies on the dollar. Mostly at tax payer expense (I'm assuming) And instead of two streams, our recycling is condensed into one. Is this more efficient and will it save money? Apparently. But in the process we have destroyed the policies and dreams of previously elected officials that help create the Arcata Recycling Center. If we are going to live in a county state or country that does not respect previous programs, we are doomed to have no effective government. It will just be based on the whims of the latest majority.
My point is, I see your point and rhetorically it is a good one, but you know it is a dangerous point as well. And I don't know if you are making it just for the rhetorical points, or if you truly believe it. IMHO, not to impugn your motives, you are either rationalizing or being disingenuous. There is rhetoric and there are tactics. This is not play nice time, there is a bunch of money on the line and I'm betting there are many people with a bunch of money on the line that would like principle number #7 to be more balanced. As much as I like to argue with you, I don't really know what we are arguing about. It seems more rhetoric and tactics to me. From all you tell me I have no real beef with you. I am interested in debating a person who is on HumCPR and can proudly say I want principle #7 to be balanced because I have such and such on the line. He/she can't so he pays HumCPR to get the politics done and luckily has people like you to defend his interests for some unknown reason.
"I am not an advocate of majority rules on matters of regional planning. It's more complicated. It's only democratic if we start asking our children, their children, the trees and salmon, etc to vote too."
ReplyDeleteWell, there we have it. Since children and people who are not yet born, and trees and salmon both present and future, cannot vote, what do you propose we do? Appoint a dictator? Obviously not. Unless we want to turn our power over to some more autocratic/technocratic non-elected decision maker(s), in the hopes that they'll make better decisions than our elected officials, we're stuck with "majority rule" in one form or another (in this case representative democracy) and have to make the best of it. It seems to me that the way to do that is through persuading the majority of the voters of the wisdom of your preferred policy choices, not by attacking the legitimacy of majority rule -- especially given the lack of an alternative.
FYI, I totally agree on the Arcata Community Recycling Center fiasco. I think the Humboldt Bay Waste Management Authority (HBWMA) should have stuck with ACRC, even though it would have cost us a bit more in the short-term.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, there were a couple of factors that led to the ACRC's demise, including:
(1) They had borrowed very heavily to build the Samoa facility, funds that they planned to pay back with the proceeds gained from selling the sorted recycleable materials. And this might have been fine, but unfortunately, soon after the Samoa facility went into operation the economy collapsed, and the price of the sorted recycleable materials plummeted (actually going below zero, where they had to pay to have those materials hauled away).
(2) A competitive bid from the Willits outfit, which was not burdened by such a heavy debt and could therefore afford to underbid the ACRC. (As I recall, there was also a dynamic where something -- I think it was wood chips -- were being hauled north from the Willits area, and then empty trucks had to drive south anyway and therefore it was extra-cheap for the Willits outfit to get the stuff hauled down to them).
(3) The onset of the recession left local governments strapped for cash, and not in a good position to, in effect, bail out the ACRC.
(4) Alleged shenanigans by the Humboldt Waste Management Authority: ACRC officials have alleged that HWMA basically conspired with the Willits outfit by providing them with inside information that enabled the Willits outfit to underbid ACRC, thereby forcing the ACRC into bankruptcy -- so that HWMA, which had expressed interest in buying the Samoa facility, could acquire it more cheaply. I don't know if those allegations are true or not, but I believe there is an ongoing lawsuit by ACRC against HWMA on this basis.
All in all, an ugly and costly episode, especially for the local folks who needlessly lost their jobs over it.
If I have to be the only grown up and admit to Republican ideals of not wanting the the majority to rule rough-shot. Then ok, I'll let the debate end there. You go ahead and ride the wave of oil money discounting the validity of climate change. As much as you dislike the Koch's et. al., you either don't realize it, or are very quite about piggy-backing on their efforts.
ReplyDeleteSEF and SVB can be Democrats and I'll be a Republican in regional planning issues in this mixed up county. Where is that number for American Crossroads? I know I have it around here somewhere.
Also, nice redirect on Louis, but you know its true. And you know exactly who the Tea Party, property owners, developers, and pot growers voted for - even if you were the one guy that didn't and apparently voted for her because there were some misbehaving cops. BTW, did you see the arms collected at the one of the recent busts reported at LoCO? This is where I would have taken that argument. Those boys have to come home and they don't know what the heck is out there. That is going to make for some very awkward moments even if people are being totally cooperative.
Appoint a dictator? HumCPR seems to be doing just fine.
"It seems to me that the way to do that is through persuading the majority of the voters of the wisdom of your preferred policy choices, not by attacking the legitimacy of majority rule -- especially given the lack of an alternative."
I am going to continue to call fowl! (its more fun than foul) one the last election until I'm blue in the face. It's past, but you better believe I am going to do everything I can from my position to disallow it going forward. We have approximately a 64/36 left/right divide based on the presidential election and if you allow Obama/Green/Barr to be left and Romney/Lib/Paul to be right. There is no way this GPU process is reflective of that divide. The local Democrats dropped the ball because they were unable to effectively deal with the nonsense of Democrats running to the right of 2 Supervisors and at least one City Councilperson that I know of.
And if SEF did not run to the right of CC, she certainly is running the GPU GP process to the right of, I don't know Ted Cruz? She was and is disingenuous and no matter how much you focus on people's emotionalism, it is well founded, because they (we) got sold a bill of goods. Which you continue to sell every day.
So much of that bid process is bs too. I remember a big controversy 20 odd years ago in downstate Illinois where I lived. I was active in some local environmental group and there were two bids for this center. The more environmental bid came in higher and the others came in lower and where chosen. Miracle of miracles, when the dust-up was over, the eventual winner went way over budget. Sometimes it pays to not be completely upfront. Or the alternative which might be seen as rude, so I won't say.
ReplyDelete"We have approximately a 64/36 left/right divide based on the presidential election and if you allow Obama/Green/Barr to be left and Romney/Lib/Paul to be right."
ReplyDeleteYou still can't wrap your mind around the simple fact that the majority of 2nd district residents genuinely supported both Barack Obama and Estelle Fennell?
"There is no way this GPU process is reflective of that divide."
You're right, it's not. Which should surprise no one, as Obama was not running for County Supervisor.
Bass, Bohn and Fennell all won by large margins, Sundberg won by a narrow margin, and Lovelace won by a large margin. Which means that only 1 out of 5 districts voted for a strong proponent of the Healthy Humboldt / Option A -style GPU. THAT is the divide that the GPU debate is reflective of. Because those were the elections that were actually relevant to the GPU. Pointing out that Obama won lots of votes at the same time just highlights that there are a lot of Obama voters who rejected your preferred Supervisorial candidates.
As far as the rest of your 6:53 rant, I'm sorry, but I just can't take it seriously. I'm "riding a wave of oil money" and "piggybacking" on the efforts of the Koch Brothers? Estelle Fennell is "running the GPU GP process to the right of...Ted Cruz?" HumCPR is like a dictator? "Histrionic" doesn't even do it justice!
.
Going back to an old question of yours I think I answered in SP
ReplyDeletere. (2) (2) The revised version adds the (not-at-all-libertarian-sounding!) phrase “in cooperation with state and federal agencies,” which makes a lot of sense given the major role that state and federal laws and regulations have with respect to natural resource protection issues.
I just don't think it is necessary, it's redundant and detracts from the message of the principle. The same reason I have for the "balancing" clause.
You still can't wrap your mind around the simple fact that the majority of 2nd district residents genuinely supported both Barack Obama and Estelle Fennell?
ReplyDeleteI accept it, and thank you for using my earlier emotional responce to use against me. You love to do that. But the campain is a reflection of the deception that is inherent in her campaign. As we know, so much of local politics, except for the partisans like you and I, are based on non-political issues. Like my neighbor who voted for Bonnie Neely because the family ties go way back (even though he is a Republican), the people who voted for Rex because he has been great to the community, and Suzy BB who seems to identify most with SEF over the old square CC. It isn't necessarily about issues or policy for most people, it is about the person. Which is why in the national campaign, Obama's numbers cratered when they had the first debate, he seemed aloof, unconcerned. I just found that amazing. "He is the same person, people" I was thinking - "same policies etc as the day before". Maybe he had a bad day, or whatever, but what that demonstrated to me is so many voters are persuaded by the intangibles. That's why for example EK brought up that moment in the debate where SEF avoided the big box issue, etc. Debates and campaigns are about telling the people not who you are, but who you want them to think you are. And SEF and you are doing a great job of that by studiously avoiding her close ties to issues of property rights and focusing on her democratic credentials - ie she won. Yes TOA, she won, she won by hiding a great deal of her ideas. These are the ideas that she had to develop with SRB behind closed doors instead of SML and SVB who nominally should be on the same team. A team who she was proud to advertise during the time of the campaign. I don't know her as well as you, but that is a whole lot closer to the truth of the campaign than you are willing to admit. Was that D worth 400 votes? Probably.
I do accept the Sunberg election. Now I know a little who Patrick Cleary is and it seems he is a pretty good, if wealthy progressive? I don't know but it seems he is someone I would vote for. I don't have a problem with SRS, or SRB. It is SVB and SEF where I am very upset, and I think there was a concerted effort to ride the blue wave. On this very important issue, they are both to the right of their opponent. And if you don't see how people like Rob Arkely, Bob McKee, and other many land speculators are going to benefit from SEF's presence on the board over say, CC's then you are fooling yourself. Most likely though you do, and you are trying to fool me.
Unfortunately, you just fundamentally misunderstand what's going on in Humboldt GPU politics. You've populated your head with a cartoonish alternative reality -- a modern day morality play complete with sinister, deceitful opponents who deviously tricked the voters and grabbed power, all to serve the greedy interests of their hidden masters.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like this discussion has kind of run its course. You're back to your broad-brush accusations and sweeping mis-generalizations. Now, on SoHum Parlance, you've declared that your preferred version of the Guiding Principles is "perfect" and there will be "no compromise." In other words, you're doubling down on the hyperbole and tripling up on the hubris.
This is pretty much the opposite of what I would suggest for someone who wants to have a constructive impact on this or any other issue. But clearly you feel otherwise. O.K., carry on. But you might as well do so over at SoHum Parlance, where Cookie and you can enjoy your little echo chamber. Since your ideas are perfect, and there's no room for negotiation, an echo chamber is the perfect place to practice your pitch. Good luck with that.
1) Nice TOA. You're agrument seems to be a) you're emotional b) you don't understand what's going because c) the Supervisor's really agree because they vote 5-0 on all policy and d) government goons, and Kirk Girard were out of control. In addition if I try to bring up the what SEF is doing in her own words to a portion of the GPU you consider e) "just a preamble" I am mistaken in her undemocratic process, because f) she is democratic because she won. Oh and did I mention g) you all are being very emotional.
ReplyDeleteTOA, I really don't expect more from you either, but I would like to continue this conversation as long as you can take it. The longer it goes the more I learn. What I learn from you mostly is politics and how to debate and argue, not what you actually want. What do you want outside of what SEF wants? You are welcome to start the discussions on each of the principles that Cookie an I are doing. We just happened to hit the one that is the heart of the entire debate IMHO.
"The real action is in the center, and this is where your fundamentally flawed analysis of the situation really costs you. You’re wasting your time churning out all that hyperbole attacking a narrow group at one end of the spectrum, and appealing to a narrow group at the other end of the spectrum. I kind of feel like shrugging my shoulders and just saying “have at it.” " I would love SEF, SRB, SVB or SRS to call out the Louis' of the world, they won't. But Matthew Owen apparently, and you, apparently think it's there job to call out the environmental extremists like myself (to use his language, not mine). No you are comfortable with friends like Louis and Matthew who are on board with this rewrite. Your beef is with me and Cookie the only emotional players who will write on a daily basis. And when we do write, we'll count on you to come in and skip half the post and pick only those embarasing parts. (ie when you rightly called me out on telling people how to vote (I wanted to edit that sentence but didn't want to polute SP with another post to slightly change the wording) but you missed the other sentence when I clearly said I didn't want to tell people how to vote.)
Yes TOA, I am doing the same thing as you, I am calling SEF and you out, but I am calling them out for your actions. You are calling me out for having the gall to be emotional and have opinions based on my real world experience that are not centrist.
Look, I'm sorry if I can't wear a tie every day and present my opinions as a little change here and a little change there when the changes where made behind closed doors negating that incredible virtual tower of government spending and people's input. I appreciate our agrement on the ACRC, similarly how much money did the previous version represent? How many hours? You've never addressed that and it seems to me I know why from previous discussions, you do not like to discuss anything that shows a chink in the armor.(no I would not use that at a Chinese-American conference)(and just looking it up - it has come up in the past 5 days when a reporter was covering Murdok's divorce with an Asia American)
To you this isn't a conversation, it is a argument wrapped in a conversation. Being emotional, at least there is more honesty here – you would concede that right ? No, now that I think about it, you wouldn't, you'd just say it illustrates I'm confused and not being analytical. I'm still deciding which tact to take on the 23rd. It will depend on the other 8 principles we haven't discussed so far. On 6,7,11 and 12. I don't have any place for compromise, Everything I'm interested in is lost in translation as I have explained, so I might as well attack the process. It's a tactic. You know and understand it. Even us emotional people know how the game is played. And I also notice that you have never admitted to playing a game. Well wether you know it or not, you are TOA, as am I. I am doing the best to be honest and outline what I am doing and why for those who are conserned and will listen (read). You do your best to conceal your interests (other than being interested in moderation and pleased with the status quo) but are very happy to attack what you must consider to be a narrow, emotional, hyperbolic, group.
ReplyDelete2)If that wasn't your way of signing off, here is another question I thought of earlier but didn't post because I wanted the earlier post addressed. If we do hold the current board accountable and vote a past-GPU friendly group in, should they have a chance to change the GP's again? If so, doesn't that really mean that we don't have any General Plan in effect? If the plan is going to change every four years isn't it contradictory to call it a plan? That's why I am proud to boast my Republican principles of a populace once removed by representatives in this case. It isn't a very popular stance, and you use that to great effect in SP, as did the Tea Party, etc to get The Four in there now.
3)Finally, if this is your swan song, I have one more observation. I could never do what you are doing. I honestly don't know if I am complimentary or not in that statement, probably the latter, but I still respect your skills. About the "barking", the only reason I have the motivation to do this is I am so pissed. In 2008, for example, after all the liberal excitement that went into Obama's campaign victory, the liberals were not out on the street supporting Obama Care, etc., but the Tea Party was, thus 2010. I really wish we had more people like you that would agitate when we are on top. Liberals like myself are very good at agitating when our principles are clearly under attack, but then we go away. If I want to continue the "barking" after we win, I am going to have to learn from you. I just don't think I could do it though. Because in the end, I think the evidence shows this isn't about passion for you, it is about protecting something, and I think the closest I got to understand what it is is the "goon" post. So if that was your last post, thanks for the arguements, I'd love you to address your thoughts on the 3 sections of the post (especially section 2). I'd recommend leaving this open for future SP arguments, I don't want to inflict on others. I'll make a not in SP to you and anyone else interested that I'm posting over here.
Your arguments are not improving, they are descending in the direction of a rambling, barely coherent rant. If that's what I was looking for, I'd spend my time poring over HOJ's missives.
ReplyDelete;)
Ranting invites the reader to ignore the ranter, and for both our sakes I'm going to take you up on that invitation. Instead I'm going to simply offer you some factual information which you ought to find helpful, assuming you wish to avoid wasting your time and energy on fatally flawed arguments:
"Compatible use" of timberlands does not include subdivision of the parcels for residential development.
Under the language unanimously adopted by the BOS in their recent straw vote on TPZ residences, "compatible use" only includes a single residence on an existing TPZ parcel (assuming you meet all conditions for a permit) and in some cases a second unit. And the Supervisors, in their straw votes on this very topic in the Forest Resources section, did NOT make it easier to subdivide TPZ parcels. You should already know these things, as we discussed those specific straw votes at length quite recently.
So when you look at the revised Guiding Principles language that says...
"Encourage, incentivize and support agriculture, timber and compatible uses on resource lands"
...and your comment is...
"What is a compatible use – subdivisions would be one I’m guessing.”
What am I to think? That you're just extremely forgetful? Extraordinarily dense? That you're being deliberately dishonest? Or that, in your zeal, you're just spewing your sky-is-falling rhetoric wildly, without bothering to think it through?
I don't think you're that forgetful, I don't think you're dense, and I don't think you're being deliberately dishonest, so I'm inclined to the latter interpretation -- you're spewing rhetoric wildly, without thinking first. Sadly, I think that describes much of your output over the past couple of days.
Does it matter? Not here on this blog, nor over at SoHum Parlance. But it will certainly matter before the Board of Supervisors. Hopefully you'll get all this ranting out of your system, and settle down to considering what are really your best arguments -- which, by the way, includes making sure that the facts you're relying on to make those arguments are solid, not just some counterfactual assertion "Cookie" threw out there, and that you uncritically accepted because it fits with your narrative.
You're advise is seeming more and more like a threat - do it or you'll regret it. I choose to graciously accept your advise as such, and ignore it when it sounds a little more insistent. Because clearly we have different interests on the GP. Thank you for the advise. Really. I will take it under consideration. Now don't be a concern troll.
ReplyDeleteJanuary 27, 2011 Urban Word of the Day
A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending."
Thank you Urban Dictionary, exactly. (Given that I've already concede the truth in what you said - yes the problem exists)
We have fundamentally different interests. I am interested in regional planning generally, you seem to be in TPZ specifics (I have not seen a single post or comment from you on the energy element). When I say subdivisions I may not be using it with the precision you are. I am thinking of Bob McKee subdividing his land for example. Is that Timberland or TPZ land, as I've tried to tell you I don't know.
As I've also tried to argue, I should not have to be an expert to voice an opinion. If that is the standard, then we are in trouble. Only those with extremely vested interests will have a say. So keep on marginalizing me. And keep on marginalizing those who are rightfully upset. Death by a thousand paper cuts is still death. (another quote you can use to marginalize me) The incremental changes in the policy as represented by the element sections is like you have argued, incremental. I have shown that despite my limited knowledge and your 5-0 assertions implying unanimity, that there isn't unanimity. The GP is where death is by a body blow, and you will only discuss it kicking and screaming. When we do want to discuss it you would like me to advocate for only slight changes in SEF's language. I hear you TOA, unfortunately the facts on the ground do not back up your position. As much as you would like me to see the world through your anonymous eyes, that is not how it works.
"Both our sakes", no TOA, just for your sake. I learn a bunch from this exercise - it is exactly that an exercise. If you want to quit, just say so. Don't passive-aggressively say you are quitting for my sake. You've had enough. I don't blame you and I surely expect to see you in SP whenever I deign to criticize SEF. See you there.
In the mean time I will continue to let you have the last word, I am not going to turn SP to this. I will type my responses here.
Also, I'd really like a response to 2) above, is it ok to have the GP change every 4 years?
Wow, it seems, Blogger now likes to eat posts too. There is a strange new delay when posting that has been going on since last night. Same for you?
ReplyDeleteAnyway it was a long(ish) post, maybe it will appear later, but it's been a couple of hours. Most of it you would have ignored as you do, but I wonder if I could get you on the record on the GP question, (2) above.
Should the GP be subject to change each time a new majority comes to power? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a plan? If so, we agree on this.
One more try, it seems I'm blocked
ReplyDelete"The GP is where death is by a body blow, and you will only discuss it kicking and screaming."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. I have discussed the Guiding Principles willingly, and at great length.
Where we part ways is when you extrapolate from the Guiding Principles in ways that are not supported by the votes that the Supervisors have already taken on the actual policy provisions in the body of the General Plan. For instance your claim that using the phrase "compatible uses" in the Guiding Principles would facilitate the increased subdivision of timberlands.
To me, it seems like you would prefer to only discuss the Guiding Principles, which by their very nature, are necessarily somewhat vague and open to a good deal of interpretation. That leaves you lots of room to make your sky-is-falling predictions of what according to you that language will mean.
It's as if we were examining the Constitution of the United States and trying to determine what kind of government was envisioned, but you only wanted to discuss the Preamble, and based on that Preamble, you predicted a totally dysfunctional disaster of a government. The Preamble is important, but if that's all you looked at, you could make all kinds of wild-haired predictions about what kind of government the new country was going to have. But that would be silly, when the rest of the document was right there to check and see which details were already spelled out.
Granted, not all the policy provisions of the GPU have been straw voted on yet, but many have, so I don't think it's at all unreasonable to insist that, in those areas that have already been straw-voted, when you make assertions about what the language in the Guiding Principles will mean, and those assertions contradict the details the Supervisors have actually already approved in their straw votes, then the actual details should trump speculative predictions of what those details might have been. It's one thing to make assertions about how generalities will translate to specifics when there is no evidence one way or the other, but quite another thing to make those assertions when that evidence is readily available, ignoring that evidence and continuing to speculate as if that evidence did not exist.
That is where I have insisted, and will continue to insist, that the Guiding Principles do not exist in a vacuum and that any interpretation of how they might translate into detailed policies should, at the very least, be consistent with the detailed policies that have already been spelled out in the straw votes they've taken so far.
Just as I wouldn't be impressed with an argument, based on an analysis of only the Preamble section of the Constitution, that this Constitution might lead to a unicameral parliamentary system headed by a Prime Minister, and a judiciary that was subservient to the parliament, and the various problems that might arise from this form of governance. That would be foolish, given that one could simply turn the page and see that in fact it had already been determined that the form of government that was envisioned included a bicameral Congress with a separate executive branch headed by a President and featuring an independent judiciary.
So, discuss the Guiding Principles all you want, but when you get into areas where you're essentially speculating about how those generalities might translate to details, and yet those details are already available for review, you can expect me to continue to encourage you to simply "turn the page" and look at the actual details, as opposed to your imagined details.
" is it ok to have the GP change every 4 years?"
ReplyDeleteIs it "O.K.?" Yes. Is it desirable? No. Which is why it is wise to work toward a "balanced approach" that most people can live with for a significant length of time, even if they aren't 100% happy with every single aspect of it.
But should the General Plan, or for that matter any long term plan, be absolutely set in stone, not changeable at all for the next two or three decades? No, conditions may change, and so may voter preferences. So it's good that the flexibility to change things, if necessary, is there.
Allow me to turn the question around, and return it to you for consideration: If the current GPU is approved in a form that you are very dissatisfied with, and so are enough other voters -- to the point where they toss the current board majority out of power and elect several Lovelace-type representatives, forming a clear majority that believes the new General Plan is doing us grave harm, should they have the ability to make modifications to the General Plan to meet their concerns and the concerns of those who voted them in? Or should they have to wait another 20 or 30 years to make those changes? For my part, I think they should have the ability to make modifications -- as in fact the law allows. But then I do believe in majority rule, including for planning decisions.
Sorry about the posts that were held up in moderation. I should have mentioned that I turned moderation on yesterday -- not because I planned to block any of your posts (I wouldn't do that) but because with moderation on, Blogger was supposed to e-mail me to let me know that there was a new comment here, which I thought would simplify things for me, so that I didn't have to check through the whole thread to see if I missed a reply somewhere.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working -- your comments were in the moderation queue this morning, but there was no e-mail to inform me of that. So I'm turning moderation back off now so that your replies to my last few comments (if you choose to reply) don't get held up. Sorry for the confusion.
I'm going to let you have the last word here, if you want it. I'll leave a few days for that. After that, I'm going to go ahead and close the comments on this thread so that it doesn't get spammed (like the poor rotting corpse of the Humboldt Herald).
The endless repetition of your (in my view, fundamentally mistaken and misleading) narrative is just not interesting and informative to me. You've made it clear that you're mostly interested in practicing your hyperbole. Which is fine, that's your prerogative. From my point of view it seems like your interpretations of the language of the Guiding Principles mostly flow backwards from a fixed narrative that you adopted right at the beginning, and you seem primarily interested in making broad claims at a level of abstraction that allows you to cling to this dogmatically-held narrative, and resent any attempt to move from the abstract to the concrete, at least when the concrete does not support that precious narrative. Again, that's your prerogative, and SoHum Parlance affords you plenty of opportunity to practice your "game," I don't feel the need to provide you a second playground here.
There have been hardly any new or interesting points raised in any of your recent posts, and to find the few that might be there, I have to plow through heaps of pointless rhetoric. I don't this is really helpful to you either, but you're right, that's not up to me to judge. So, speaking for myself only, I think this forum has long since outlived its usefulness (assuming it ever had any), and is mostly a waste of my time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you've apparently derived some benefit from this forum, and in particular, I'm glad you found at least some of my advice -- the "process" part on how to best organize your comments to the BOS and maximize your impact -- useful to you.
I'm sorry you have interpreted my advice on content & tone as "concern trolling," as that has not been my intent. As I have said above, I really do want you to make your best arguments. In that sense, I suppose I'm a starry-eyed optimist, who really believes that if everyone makes their best arguments and is clearly heard, more often than not the majority will eventually make good (if not "perfect") decisions. Not every time, and not always in the short-term, but more often than not, and increasingly over the long term. I believe that, at its core, this is the best hope for our survival as imperfect humans, with differing experiences and opinions, to continue to co-exist and manage our relations through a democratic system.
O.K., last word is yours if you want it.
See you around.
Allow me to turn the question around, and return it to you for consideration: If the current GPU is approved in a form that you are very dissatisfied with, and so are enough other voters -- to the point where they toss the current board majority out of power and elect several Lovelace-type representatives, forming a clear majority that believes the new General Plan is doing us grave harm, should they have the ability to make modifications to the General Plan to meet their concerns and the concerns of those who voted them in? Or should they have to wait another 20 or 30 years to make those changes? For my part, I think they should have the ability to make modifications -- as in fact the law allows. But then I do believe in majority rule, including for planning decisions.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very difficult question. I think they probably should be there for 20 or 30 years. It might get us motivated to really pay attention to them.
See ya round. Thanks for the conversation. If you feel like it say hi at any meeting you see me. Your secret is safe with me. Wish me luck on the 3 minutes, I'll need it.