Have you noticed that since Don Roberts made the pronouncement on his site that:
We do not “cherry pick” letters for publication which contain opinions with which we agree. Our readership does not consist “only of people who are opposed to Mayor Johnson”, however the majority of our readers who write letters on that topic, seem to be opposed to Mayor Johnson…In fact, we publish virtually all of the letters we receive and those small numbers that have not been published are predominantly redundant from anti-Johnson, anti-megaplex, anti-growth, and anti-traffic readers.
He has been conveinently burying all, what I would term “good” letters on Saturday only to have them drop off by Monday. By the way, I love how he speaks in the royal “we” lends such a sense of grandeur. Case in point, on Saturday we had two really good letters, the first from Micharl Karp, who says:
I read Eugenie’s Thomson’s 16 page letter to the Planning Board related to the traffic study/EIR that was done for Alameda Towne Centre and knowing a little bit about the history of the center, I found some glaring mistakes.
She said in her letter that “plain talk is where the truth resides”. Here is a list of her assertions and then the “real truth”. If you read the traffic study and read her letter, I think you will see the difference. There are many inconsistencies in her analysis and here are just a few of them:
Thomson’s Statement - The Traffic study stated that project would have “zero impacts” on the surrounding area.
Fact- The EIR actually shows some traffic impacts and points out specific mitigations to handle those impacts.
Thomson’s Statement – The Traffic study only considered the traffic and parking of an additional 49,100 square feet of building.
Fact- The traffic study not only accounted for the proposed square footage of the total shopping center (706,000 sq ft ), but it also accounted for the new gas station that Safeway is proposing to build on land they are buying.
Thomson’s Statement- Alameda Towne Centre has only 300,000 sq ft of shopping center today
Fact- Alameda Towne Centre, according to City records, has 540,000 sq. ft. currently.
Thomson’s Statement- The Target should be built on the West end of the island.
Fact- Thomson is a traffic engineer and should know that the current traffic on the West end of the island is already at breaking point now and can’t handle a Target.
Thompson also made a comment recently at a public forum that Otis should be reduced to one lane in each direction and the other remaining lanes be made available for bikes. Now, I love bikes, live very close to Otis and have three young boys, two of whom ride their bikes to Krusi Park all the time and I cycle myself, but coming from a traffic engineer I find this idea especially troubling.
After reading her letter you would think she would see a need for better traffic flow for cars, not less trafiic flow for cars. In addition, she would be advocating creating a bottleneck on State Highway 61, which Otis is designated as along a part of this stretch, which would be very ill advised; where, you might ask, would that traffic get shunted to? I urge readers to evaluate the proposal carefully and make sure that our elected leaders - ALL OF THEM - are stating “the facts”.
And Malgudi Iyer who says:
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there are a few anti-Johnson stickers on public property that have started popping up around town. One can only surmise after eliminating the various (!) possibilities, that this must be the handiwork of somebody opposed to her. My main question here is: “Who is behind this?” Not Beverly Johnson. Not Lena Tam. Not Frank Matarrese.
Apologies for the circular logic. I was simply following the approach of an earlier letter that employed the same reasoning in an attempt to deduce who was behind the recent telephone poll!
Jokes apart, elections are no reason to deface public property.
Today, these letters are lost to the viewers of Alameda Daily News, but not to those of us who only use the mirror site! Although, I know that he does indeed continue to cherry pick those letter, but he’ll never admit it.
I mailed another letter to Don on the 25th Oct (in addition to the one he published as mentioned above). Despite his protestation to the contrary, he does indeed cherry pick what he chooses to print. As we’ve seen all along, pro-Slate letters are published promptly (and in their entirety), while letters that question the Slate are edited so as to lose their meaning completely, or published on the weekends (as noted above) or simply ignored!
To nobody’s surprise, Don chose to ignore this letter!
————————————–
Don,
Recent letters have expressed support for the Slate on the grounds that the present incumbents are not responsive enough to concerns of Alamedans. If this is a major priority for the Slate supporters, can I ask how they support Pat Bail despite several of her comments that have simply disparaged those less fortunate, mocked ethnic groups and has largely been an obstructionist.
For instance, Pat Bail has:
- Used terms such as “dregs of society” when referring to the homeless
- Was against: building low cost housing and the new Alameda Public Library
- Attributed traffic problems in Oakland Chinatown to “people double parking to buy their live turtles or whatever it is that they eat”
- Suggested easing Alameda’s East-West divide by “throwing a few bones to the West End” (see Alameda Journal, September 24 2004)
Bizarre as it may sound, I am not making any of this up! Interested readers might want to watch her past appearances on a certain “Don Roberts TV Show” to see for themselves if Pat Bail is really the “community activist” that she claims to be. If all this weren’t enough, she also has no prior experience of serving on any city commission!
Pat Bail simply does not have the qualifications needed to represent Alameda.
–
Malgudi Iyer.
Comment by Malgudi Iyer — October 30, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
He thinks the world of himself and his TV show (now this is a candidate for “dregs of TV shows”).
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2006 @ 9:38 am
I have had my letter’s not get printed on the Robert’s site. Also another trick he has used on me is to put the letter up for a couple hours in mid day and then take it down, that’s very creative don’t ya think. At least on this site everyone gets to fight it out in the open. John P.
Comment by John Piziali — October 31, 2006 @ 11:09 am
John, Dan has setup an archive . This will ensure that postings to the ADN site will be preserved for posterity!
Here’s a scoop! The scooper was scooped!
Comment by Alameda — October 31, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
Don Roberts is another Republican, like Pat Bail!
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2006 @ 11:27 am
It looks like the Slate and Don Roberts are panicking! He and his devoted band of followers have gotten more shriller than normal (if that were even possible).
Comment by Chris — November 2, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
I don’t know about that, I think they are far from a grass roots type of group. They have gotten newspaper coverage, the don blog is 100% slate coverage, full page ads and I’m awaiting the hit piece this weekend. They are a well oiled political machine, they work on the Carl Rove theory of negative campaigning,and scorched earth dirty politics. They will get very nasty and dirty in the next few days. They have that win at any costs attitude and its scary. John P.
Comment by John Piziali — November 2, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
John - what ARE you saying? You are scary in a Rovian way. The slate is a well-oiled political machine? That’s Johnson’s friend Perata you are thinking about. The only thing the Slate has going for it is the truth –and honest citizens mad as hell that the status quo will tie down our community to be raped by developers. My kids are still young, 1st & 4th grade - I want this island to remain a residential safe haven for them.
Nothing changes at this site - the same bloggers repeating the same empty rhetoric! What do Johnson, Matarrese and Tam stand for? At least the Slate that has the support of Alamedans actually has stated a platform. While Tam alone has outspent all 3 candidates on the Slate what message does she deliver? With Johnson and Matarrese we know what to expect.
We all know that the island of Alameda is a unique jewel in the Bay Area. Next week we have to elect someone to protect this precious residential island city of homes. This is about real trust.
Can voters trust Mayor Johnson? Last election I wanted to protect the qualities I cherish in Alameda and I voted for her as she was running with support of “Californians for Neighborhood Preservation”. Now we all know CNP, like over 80% of Johnson’s mayoral campaign, was financed by developers. (Developers and real estate investors donated over $100,000 to CNP.) “Californians for Neighborhood Preservation did not file with our city the source of their donations until Nov 1, 2002, - 6 days before the election. Doric Reality, who built much of Harbor Bay, gave $25,000 to “Californians for Neighborhood Preservation”, the PAC that most supported Johnson’s last campaign. Johnson was still filing her donation papers Jan 27, 2003. In fact by her records Harsch (Owner of South Shore shopping center) gave her $2500 a week after the election. Draw your own conclusions what that was for. By voting in favor of every big development plan with her city council voting partners Gilmore and Matarrese, Johnson has certainly done the job for development as Don Perata pointed out in one of the mailers he sent out supporting her. Clearly if you want to fill Alameda with more high density housing and see if all the cars fit on our bridges, vote for the ‘Silent Slate’ of Johnson, Matarrese and Tam. As Tony White pointed out, the ‘silent slate’ has no platform. The “Voice of the People” Slate is clear on where they stand – 1.-Open Government, 2.- Highest & Best use of Taxpayer Money, 3.- Community-driven development, 4.- A realistic Traffic Plan that that regards the whole Island. See http://www.actionalameda.org for more info. City development staff looks at piecemeal plans that avoid the overall reality. Johnson has loaded the Planning Board with a group that almost unanimously wants to alter Measure ‘A’. She talks about the importance of preserving Alameda’s Open Space, yet sold City owned Open Space for the ridiculously low price of $37,500 per acre to Harbor Bay Storage. Last Month Johnson, Gilmore and Matarrese voted to rezone that same piece of land so HBS could expand their business. Neighbors have told me would have paid more for the land to keep it open green space. I too would have wanted to purchase open space to trade with the city, but the land was not sold on the open market. When questioned, Johnson said she believed staff when they said that is what the property was worth. -Is this the same city staff that will say a super-Target, plus an additional 5 million square feet of retail and office space, and 4400 new homes on the island “will have a less than significant impact on traffic?” Staff also was the reason, or excuse, to sell Harbor Bay Storage their original 5+ acres for about $1,000,000, instead of maintaining our lease with them. Residential lots have been reduced to 2000 sf as the Johnson-approved standard size. 2000 sf is supposed to be the lowest limit for EXCEPTIONS to the standard 5,000 sf lot size. Maybe most of our City Planning Staff at City Hall West don’t live in Alameda. Planning Director Leslie Little prefers to live in San Jose which is her home. City staff doesn’t see that development will affect us who drive on our streets and use the bridges and tube. We need growth that residents want, not what developers want. That why the majority will vote for deHaan, Bail and Thomson.
David Kirwin
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 3, 2006 @ 1:35 am
Gee I’m sorry that I kept David up so late. He is exactly what I’m talking about,he drinks the cool aid and has all the talking points ready to go, “silent Slate” and so on. If you will notice they are always ready to attack and smear. As for the 5,000,000. square feet of commercial, that is what could be possible in the next quarter century only if the demand were there and it would still be controlled by the city. Mayor Johnson was not the one person responsible for these issues Doug Dehaan has been right in the middle of all these issues also and I don’t recall him fighting agaisnt them in the past.
Comment by John Piziali — November 3, 2006 @ 8:34 am
John, it appears you have not been watching who votes for what at the council meetings.
-Dave Kirwin
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 3, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
John, it appears you have not been watching who votes for what at the council meetings. _I guess you retired and stay at home folks have all day to make up your sound bites and blog bits…
-Dave Kirwin
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 3, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
Another potshot by Slate: this time at “retired and stay at home folks”. Dave Kirwin might be a hotshot executive, but it is apalling how he characterizes those who disagree with him (just like his spiritual guide: the honorable Pat “intolerant” Bail). Many of these “stay at home” folks have a full time job looking after their kids.
Doesn’t this account for anything in your books?
Comment by Richard — November 3, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
Did I miss something? But as I recall the only official Council action took on Alameda Point was approving the Preliminary Design Concept. During the meetings leading up to approval, Doug voiced “concerns” but did he actually voted against approving it? If so, did he go on record with his reasons why he was against the Preliminary Design Concept?
Comment by Alameda Joe — November 3, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
David I still work every day as a General Contractor, that’s why I’m not up at 1:35am writing letters, at 63yrs old I usally fall asleep much earlier than you. However I have stayed up late enough to watch Doug DeHaan vote 5 times in favor of the theater project. How’s that for an Old Folk.?
Comment by John Piziali — November 3, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
DAVID You seem to have a problem with city staff members not living in Alameda does this mean that you think all city employee’s should live in Alameda, like firemen and police, or do you just single out people like Leslie Little who you seem to have a problem with. This is what we are talking about when we say you like to attack and smear people. These are city employee’s trying to do thier job and I think you are a pretty sad individual when you feel it is neccassary to continually attack them just because they do not happen to drink your cool aid. John P.
Comment by John Piziali — November 3, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
The slate’s “we don’t like anything “ad in today’s paper was hilarious.
Doug voted for four of the 6 things they whine about in the ad.
Amazing that with all the good things in Alameda, these folks can only look at the negative.
Great Slogan: Vote for us, we think this town sucks!
Comment by John Knox White — November 3, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
Sorry I miss guessed your employment status John; I was going by how often you blog during the day and that I know you did well (financially speaking) as a builder in Alameda. I do think emergency response employees of the city should live locally if not in the city itself. I do not have any problem with Leslie Little on a personal level. People are conditioned by their environments. Anyone who prefers to live in San Jose must have a different view of acceptable urban life that those who chose Alameda as a place to live and raise children. Quite frankly, I think she is too good at her job of creating big development to work in this city. You may have heard that the Tower Deal in San Jose fell through, again. They built a 17 story, 380,000 sf office building that cost over $100 million. It was completed in 2002 and has yet to be occupied. As a re-development project how many decades of tax increment would be flushed away by that single project? Was that the kind of project Ms Little worked on before bringing her skill set to our city? Do you think we should spend our future tax increment income on what developers are guessing they want today? If you do, I disagree with you, but I think we can each think of better uses for city tax money than repaying bonds to help developers. Unfortunately we cannot get those tax increments into the general fund until the redevelopment bonds are repaid which is why we need to stop issuing them. We are going to need that tax money in our future to run the city. We cannot simply keep adding to the city without sacrificing our quality of life. There is limited “sprawl area” on our island. We cannot continue to run on debt. Can you discuss that or do you need to “smear” me for caring enough to stay up late to try to make a rational argument?
I have not attacked or smeared anybody – what were you talking about in your blog earlier today? What’s all this kool-aid your obsessed with? Why can’t you just respond to the argument in a meaningful way. – Tell me about the 5 times you say deHaan voted for the Theater project. What were the votes on?
Richard your “potshot” is way off the mark. How do you think I characterized retired or stay at home folks? I hope to be one myself some day.
I never said anything about parenting, I know how hard that is, how difficult it is to find time for anything other that work and parenting. Hopefully the web streaming of public meetings will allow more participation by those of us who work and parent. You may think of me as a “hot shot executive” but in reality I am a trades worker for a public school district in this county. I am a liberal democrat, but I don’t always agree with the ‘party’. I am a loyal unionist, and served in many offices including local president during my 15 years with the IATSE; but I don’t think the worker is always right in every grievence. I am fair-minded and willing to listen to reason. Show me reason
The replies to my blog today (or now yesterday) show me this little group is still into attacking people who disagree with them rather than attacking the arguments they bring. As this continues nothing constructive can occur by participating in this site. That is a shame for the whole city, you are wasting an opportunity.
I hope we all can try to converse instead of ranting and raving and whining – we could make progress instead of wasting time. From my perspective rational views point to the need to vote for deHaan, Thomson and Bail; try to reply condtructivly. My expectation is that there will just be personal attacks again or no reply at all. Please prove me wrong, I’ll check back later this weekend.
For those who may be unaware of all the proposed development registered with the city the following chart may be an eye-opener. I hope the chart does not lose formatting when posted. I will try.
The chart below lists just some of the projects now on our island’s development queue.
Unless there is a change, the Don Perata development machine’s Alameda council block of Johnson, Matarrese and Gilmore will continue to allow the development of all of these and other projects. Such is their record to date.
-David Kirwin
PROJECT RESIDENTIAL (units) RETAIL (square feet, (sf)) OFFICE/COMMERCIAL (sf)
Cardinal Point 160
Wind River 45,000
Encinal Terminals 165 50,000 180,000
Grand Marina 40 0
Penzoil 25 0
Del Monte 150,000 50,000
Boatworks 244 0
Marina Village 20,000 500,000
Bridgeside Center 112,000 (was 50,000)
Island High Residential 26 0
Park St 0 10,000
Harbor Bay 104 0 700,000
South Shore Mall Target Store at 145,000 = total mall 707,000 sf current occupancy= 300,000 Change from current = 407,000 sf
Ballena Bay 61
Webster St 0 10,000
Alameda Point 1700 336,000 3,100,000
Summer House 587
Coast Guard Housing 262
Bayport 635
Alameda Landing 300 300,000 400,000
Alameda Background Growth 50 50,000 200,000
Alameda Theater 1500 seat, 320 auto spaces, 5,000
Total 4,359 Total 1,400,000 Total 5,175,000
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 4, 2006 @ 12:30 am
If someone can tell me how to post an excel file, I will try to repost the chart.
Thanks,
Dave Kirwin
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 4, 2006 @ 12:37 am
Dave, I don’t have the technical ability to post it as a file, but if you do, could you please remove the projects from the list that have been completed (It almost appears as if the slate is livingin in a different year!), correct the numbers for places like Bayport that are partially done, and remove projects that are based on ideas, rather than plans that have been submitted.
Also plese remove the projects that were approved 4+ years ago but have not moved forward.
Like so much or the slate’s information, your info is out of date, incorrect and highly mis-leading.
Thanks.
Comment by John Knox White — November 4, 2006 @ 6:17 am
John Knox White - Please be specific.
-David Kirwin
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 4, 2006 @ 8:54 am
I’ll try something different:
PROJECT RESIDENTIAL (units) RETAIL (sf) OFFICE/COM (sf)
Cardnal Point 160
Wind River 45,000
Encinal Terminals 165 50,000 180,000
Grand Marina 40 0
Penzoil 25 0
Del Monte 150,000 50,000
Boatworks 244 0
Marina Village 20,000 500,000
Bridgeside Center 112,000 (was 50,000)
Island High Residential 26 0
Park St 0 10,000
Harbor Bay 104 0 700,000
South Shore Mall Target Store at 145,000 = total 707,000 current occupany= 300,000
Ballena Bay 61
Webster St 0 10,000
Alameda Point 1700 336,000 3,100,000
Summer House 587
Coast Guard Housing 262
Bayport 635
Alameda Landing 300 300,000 400,000
Alameda Background Growth 50 50,000 200,000
Alameda Theater 1500 seat, 320 auto spaces, 5,000
Total 4,359 Total 1,400,000 Total 5,175,000
If posting this as it read in Notepad doesn’t work, would somebody make a suggestion?
Thanks,
David Kirwin
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 4, 2006 @ 9:05 am
Mr. Kirwin, you could try sending the Excel spreadsheet directly to Ms. Do. Her e-mail address is listed on the “Contact” page. As you can probably see, it’s very hard to read in its current form.
Also, I think I can clarify Mr. Knox White’s question. Here are some specific examples that caught my eye:
Summer House is not new housing, but rather a renovation of units that were already there. How does this count as “additional” cars?
Cardinal Point is already built and occupied. How does this count as “additional” cars?
Bayport is partially constructed and occupied by residents whose cars are already on the road today. Is the entire development being counted as “additional” cars, or only the houses that have not yet been constructed?
Under “Coast Guard Housing,” has the number of existing, occupied units been subtracted from the total of new units to be constructed or refurbished?
Under “Harbor Bay” (which I assume refers to the business park), has the square footage that has already been constructed been subtracted from the total? Some of the new commercial space has been up and running for some time now.
Does “Wind River” refer to Wind River’s option to build another building on the site, or to the original project, which has been open for years now? This option was requested during the height of the dot-com boom, but now that the bubble has burst, it appears highly unlikely that this building will ever be built.
Well, I hope that will be enough specific examples to get you started.
The thrust is that The Slate is inflating the number of “additional” cars by including projects that are fully or partially constructed, or that are merely replacing residential or commercial space that was in operation until only recently, or that will, in all likelihood, never be built.
I’m especially disappointed in Eugenie Thomson, who as a professional traffic engineer should know better than to sign off on such dubious methodology.
I’m also disappointed in Councilmember deHaan, who voted in favor of a number of the projects on this list and now joins Ms. Bail and Ms. Thomson in holding those same projects up as examples of irresponsible over-development.
Comment by Michael Krueger — November 4, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
M.K. & J.K.W. - I think this data must be the numbers that reflect ‘additional’ as compared to the aged traffic studies that the city is using to analyze traffic.
As for sending the excel file to Ms. Do, I am sure she has this info, and frankly from her past methodology I do not trust that her framing of the information would be anything near an unbiased presentation of the facts.
-David Kirwin
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 4, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
As we all know Alameda California is a very small town filled with compassionate community members. We all may be divided by political affiliation, preference of mode of transportation, and all together different views and opinions of the world but one major connection ties us all together and this is quality of life and the ability to speak freely. Quite frankly the ability to speak freely is about the most beautiful (for lack of better terms) thing about our government structure. I like to know that the opposing side always has a voice and that no matter how different the views may be, we can still speak.
We live in a community that is so small that we can almost remember one another’s hairstyle in high school and we can recognize one another’s cars on 880. This is the beauty of our community. The ability to produce educated athletic children is one of our most valuable assets. I love the fact that I know my mom and dads high school friends and they know me. I love the fact that my grandparent’s friends have grandchildren that I am friends with. The point I am trying to make is that we are all not that different, we all have interconnections that no election should tear apart.
Some of these elections opponents have spent many hours and days with my family. I remember going to the Bay Fair Mall as a 5 year old kid Hanging out with Nick Cabral while he ran crew on his job. I remember my dad and his friends playing Basketball with pick-up leagues in Oakland. My life’s memories are filled with several of my father’s new opponents. I remember in years past prior to the introduction of Pat as a slate mate where John Piziali and my father would spend countless hours on the phone when John Piziali was on the Planning Board and my Father was on the Economic Planning Commission. I remember John and Merilee Piziali in our front room of our house during the 2004 victory party. I remember Mario Mariani and Wendy Mariani and Natalie at my wedding. All of these memories are brought up to exemplify all of our similarities and they are an example of the connection to the way that our families think.
The introduction of Pat Bail blew this link apart. Why? Affiliation with Pat is a wonderful thing. She helps balance the city; She provides representation for the opposing side. If we tip the scale with a monolithic thought process then please tell me how democracy will perform. Without a balanced group of council members how can we sleep at night with no representation? I am not asking anyone to agree with me, Doug or Pat; I am trying to point out the beauty of this Slate. My previous paragraphs try to show the links and ties we all have. I am trying to show the instances that changed certain individual’s minds, and show how we all should embrace opposition and respect the ability to speak slander and voice our own opinions. I also just want to point out our interconnectedness that we all try to shed and hide. This election to my entire family has been an exercise in educating the public, showing the real issues we are all faced with and trying to come to middle ground to benefit all of our community. We can deviate from what the issues may really be, but does this at all benefit any one of us? Does it do us all any good not to hear one another out? This campaign has capped the use of big funds, changed thoughts of measure A and has drawn the question about the effects of an influx of corporate super stores. I think that no matter the outcome of this race, Doug, and Pat have done a wonderful job of showing the public that there are some serious issues we all need to tackle. We are all human beings, we all have opinions and we all make mistakes. Being an elected official is not only a challenge on the elected official it is a greater challenge for the entire family. My entire family egged my Father on to do this, to make sure we all do not fall asleep at the wheel and let the city drive itself. I am happy to see the outpour of interest this election has created and even if that interest is anti Doug and Pat, it is wonderful to see the public awareness.
The division lines have not only effected the de Haan family and friends it has also effected the entire Johnson Family. Ashley Jones (thank you for teaching me how to swim Ash) is related to Beverly. Although they both do not agree on anything. Leitz sr. who is also a relative of Beverly has a de Haan Bail sign on the front lawn. This election has become very interesting in my eyes.
I just want to thank all of you arm chair politicians for becoming familiar with the issues and speaking up. If we all get together to create a healthier happier educated community it will only benefit us all. We all put our pants on one leg at a time, we all have good concerns so lets stop trying to dig dirt and focus on the issues at hand. Lets sit back on the couch with our family and decided on November 7th where the truth really lies, and pick individuals who we all think will listen, adapt to change, and speak both sides of the issues. Let’s not fear differences in opinion; Let’s embrace this opposition to draw the middle ground. We all live in glass homes, so lets set down the stones.
Comment by Gregg de Haan — November 4, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Greg,
You are right, the introduction of Pat has “blown this link apart”. I was also proud to support your dad in the 2004 election(the one in which he was proud to list Don Perata as a major supporter), but I can not condone his affiliation with a person who is so divisive, vulgar and hurtful towards others. It saddened me the other night to see Doug forced to fabricate a rationale for Pat’s referral of the homeless as the dregs of society, by attributing her remarks as a criticism of some inmate workforce program he used to be involved with.
Should Doug become Mayor, I hope he will recapture his ability to think and act independently. Should he remain a council member then I hope he will have the strength of his convictions to call foul when he sees an example of closed government, unlike his silence following every closed meeting that he has so actively participated in so far.
Comment by another Doug — November 4, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
Dave Kirwin, if you don’t trust Lauren … then send it to David Howard and watch him spin the data up the wazoo!
Christ, you piss and moan about being fair but did you try telling this to David Howard and Don Roberts as well? Start cleaning your own house first.
Comment by Chris — November 4, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Greg’s comments offer no new rationale or ground breaking stuf (”vote for my dad because he’s a good guy” is pretty lame).
Doug has shown he lacks the ability to speak up and is instead simply toeing Pat Bail’s commands.
Comment by Chris — November 4, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
Chris – try using a little less venom please. We are not enemies, we are not at war. David H and Don R don’t live in my house, I don’t speak for them - they don’t speak for me. Maybe I’ve wasted my time again here; clearly there are still just personal attacks and no facts. This is no way to debate the future of our city. I’m disappointed that bloggers here show so much emotion and so little intellectual content in their posts.
-David Kirwin
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 4, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
David K.
I’ve appreciated your recent comments and tone and agree with your comments about the venom.
The tone is cutting people out of the conversation. We can disagree with each other respectfully.
Comment by John Knox White — November 4, 2006 @ 8:39 pm