And based on Melinda's comment...I rest my case.
If the Capleton defenders in this thread actually set out to prove that they are a bunch of intellectually stunted homophobic losers, seething with hatred and apparently incapable of making any sort of cogent point, well then congratulations, mission accomplished!.
Not giving a hater a platform is not the same as "censoring" them, any more than it is "censorship" just because the New York Times doesn't offer the Grand Wizard of the KKK a weekly Op-Ed column.
Seems to me that what Sundberg asked for — a detailed, side-by-side comparison between each provision of the old plan, and each corresponding provision of the proposed new plan — should be a very useful document, both for the Board, and for the public.
And I applaud the staff’s recommendation that they do two such reports — one report before the straw votes, so that the Supervisors (and the public) can clearly see what changes they’d be making to the existing plan by voting for a particular item in the proposed update, and then a follow-up report to clarify what the outcome was after they made any revisions to those items and held their straw votes. Despite all the talk about “dumbing down” the process, to me, this looks more like a very intelligent way of actually “tightening up” the process.
So this seems like a much-needed improvement in the review process, and a reasonable compromise between those who were insisting that the current process should continue as fast as possible, and those who would rather see the whole process brought to a halt, or even sent back to the drawing board.
Yes, the new review process may slow things down a bit, but I think it’s doubtful that they were going to get to any final, binding votes until next year anyway. Which I think is only appropriate, given that there is one newly-elected Board member (Rex Bohn) who just took his seat recently (months ahead of schedule, due to Jimmy Smith’s early departure), and another newly-elected Supervisor, (Estelle Fennell), who will be joining the Board in January. So why not take the time to go ahead and do a more thorough review?
I guess I’ll have to wait and see what the new review documents actually include, how they are formatted, what level of detail is included, and so on — but my initial reaction is that this is a pretty good outcome.
Planning Director Martha Spencer's answer was that it would take more than a week to put a document like that together. Other than the time issue, she didn't give any reason why the staff whould not be able to fulfill Sundberg's request. Not by this Monday's meeting, but in whatever reasonable timeframe the staff needs to get the work done.
But it's not clear to me whether, as a result of that exchange, Spencer was committing to provide such a document as soon as possible, or whether the lack of follow-up after she said "it would take more than a week" means that she is taking no action on the request unless directed more specifically to come up with a time frame, and get the job done.
So if this is an important part of what Sundberg wants, he may need to reiterate his request this week, and perhaps make a formal motion directing staff to produce the document, and specifying exactly what level of detail he wants (my interpretation is that he was asking for a specific, item by item comparison), and what he wants included (my interpretation is that he wants that for the whole plan).
And of course he would need the votes of at least two other supervisors to pass the motion. But it seems like all the Supervisors would welcome that kind of comparison, both for their own use, and for the public. If not, I'd like to hear why not.
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
In Print This Week:
Mar 23, 2017
vol XXVIII issue 12
Young & Hungry
The North Coast Journal
Website powered by Foundation