Thank you for removing [edited reference to apparent call for violence or perhaps just poorly chosen sarcasm]
Judy, please observe what your rabid jingo-journalism creates in those unfortunates who rely on you for information: cultural rabies. Obviously [edited: name of removed commenter] isn't responsible for herself--but you are. Shame on you.
Here's a good critique from That Other Anonymous on SoHum Parlance, who also observes that recognizing longstanding efficient and effective rural sanitation practices has nothing to do with development, it's just common sense and good planning. And I quote:
The side-by-side comparisons of the existing wording, and Fennell’s proposed revisions, is interesting and at least a few of the differences are potentially significant. But much of Ryan’s “analysis” of what those revisions signify is pretty hyperbolic, for example his scary-sounding “Gone are protections for agriculture and timberlands…” And some are just plain laughable, such as “Replacing ‘preserve’ with ‘honor’ implies reverence. To what?” Oh my God, just what exactly is she proposing that we honor with reverence!!!???
And then there’s his freakout about her proposed rewording of ““Support the County’s economic development strategy and work to retain and create living-wage job opportunities” to instead read “Support economic development and work to retain and create living-wage job opportunities.” Here Ryan warns darkly that “Fennell shows a libertarian’s distrust of government, denying the county’s authority to develop a strategy for economic development. Such development is a goal unto itself, says Fennell.”
Uh, I guess you could read it that way, if you supply a whole lot of bias to grease the rhetorical wheels — but a simpler and more straightforward interpretation is that “Support economic development…” is simply a broader goal that speaks to what county residents actually care about — that we support economic development that retains and creates living wage jobs, as opposed to what reads as a narrower goal, that we only support retaining and creating living wage jobs IF they fit neatly within a certain pre-determined economic development strategy. I don’t see how Fennell’s wording would preclude
And of course his claim that “Such development is a goal unto itself, says Fennell” makes no sense unless you accept that under the original wording, the County’s development strategy is “a goal unto itself,” an even more absurd notion. Fortunately no such tortured interpretation of either version of the wording is necessary, since in both cases the second part of the sentence “to retain and create living-wage job opportunities” easily provides the needed context — that in both cases the point of the economic development is so that we can retain and create good-paying jobs.
And his ‘OH NOES WE’RE ALL DOOMED CUZ SHE’S ONE A THEM CRAZY LIBRUTARIUMS!” freak-out doesn’t quite fit with Fennell’s addition of the phrase “in cooperation with state and federal agencies” to the statement about protecting open space, water resources and water quality. He somehow completely misses that pro-government-agency-involvement addition, which certainly doesn’t sound like the kind of reflexive “libertarian’s distrust of government,” that he believes he detects elsewhere. No, he glides right by that, instead choosing to fret over the ominous addition of the phrase “balanced approach” (Because surely we wouldn’t want to strive for a “balanced approach,” since as everyone knows, an “unbalanced” approach is generally the best way to approach issues where differences of opinion are significant.)
Basically Ryan seems to be laboring pretty hard to try to put as negative a spin as possible on her proposed changes, and has to employ quite a bit of pretzel logic and creative-reading-between-the-lines to do so, and still doesn’t come up with much. Yes, Fennell is clearly not a fan of the proposition that allowing people to live in rural areas should be strongly discouraged by the County. Which is news to precisely nobody, as this is a position that most of her rural constituents share, which is one of the main reasons that she won her election in the first place.
tra sums up Sundberg's instructions to Martha very clearly. What's most remarkable to me is the insult she adds to her insubordination by not just ignoring his request, but arranging the 'workshop' that Mark Odd Man Out requested (which no one else mentioned) immediately after the agendized vote on the GPU that her workshop would theoretically inform.
What an efficiently contemptuous gesture! She arranges for an uninformed vote, shines on a specific request for information, and arranges a Planning-Department-As-Usual presentation of biases and half-information to inform votes immediately after she agendizes the vote itself.
At the very least, Ryan, consider including a balance of insults. Because the unbalance of insults in this process is clear everywhere but in your reporting.
Ryan, your lede is silly. A coup is a secret, extra-legal attempt to seize power. And that did happened in years past, when the now-shriveled greens exercised their Rovian playbook of dividing, demonizing and flat-out lying about, for example, why they passed the emergency TPZ ordinance (to send a message to the Palco judge), only to try to extend their 'emergency' after the Palco judge declared that he got their message loud and clear.
Systematic doubletalk, covering up the architects of the code enforcement scandal, inability to deal honestly with citizens blown off by predetermined outcomes--all that happened for years, and it's why Mark is so lonely today on the Board. It's also why the GPU adds up to so much tergiversating gibberish.
So what happened yesterday was not at all surprising, or upsetting. It's transparent politics. It's a shame neither you nor what's left of the Arcata junta even recognize how politics is supposed to work. What does that say?
Thanks for the eyewitness picture, Evan. I agree. Dividing citizens and stigmatizing (often ignorantly and stupidly) those who are disagreed with with doesn't come from below; it's just about all that our leaders actually lead us in doing.
Democracy can't possibly work when our representatives don't know what it is. Our representatives don't know what democracy is, they just know what pisses them off. They don't know how democracy would work if we had one. And it's safe to say they're not learning.
For those who don't know, our regional Democratic machine doesn't believe in primaries. These aren't so much endorsements as announcements that Huffman has gotten the party nod to proceed up the career escalator that previously carried Chesbro, Thompson, Berg etc to their present interchangeable positions.
He's a former NRDC lawyer. Professional enviros
get a lot of things right, and a lot of things wrong, because they are first and foremost professional. Welcome to the escalator, Jared!
ps, I'm a lifelong Democrat and grassroots enviro. I do think a little democracy would be good even for Democrats.
Without judgement, people should understand that Dan's pre-eminent business is building apartment units that enable the county to comply with state and federal low-income housing programs. He and Planning are two heads of one critter, whether it be Beauty or Beast. So it's no wonder they talk and think the same. They are largely overlapping interests, getting and spending the same grants.
Ryan, the complaint I hear most vociferously against Kirk is that his retort to complaints that he or his staff have done something illegal/immoral/braindead etc is simply "Sue me." So it's no wonder that people do.
Suing is the official complaint procedure for the Planning Division. And that's another complaint frequently heard from the interior of the county, except by our leaders, who can hear nothing from that quarter. It's too confusing to listen to second-class constituents . . .
All Comments »
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation