“Don’t be shocked by the tone of my voice”

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Kitchen Democracy website and its recent foray into Alameda politics.   While the tenents  tenets (as corrected by the spelling police) are something that I can totally get behind and the reasoning why the founders started it definitely resonate with me, there is something that doesn’t sit well with me about the format itself.   What has helped me not entirely dismiss the whole Kitchen Democracy thing is the vouching of Robert Vogel from an Alamedan whose opinion I respect.   But with that said, I haven’t yet “participated” on KD yet because there is still something that just feels a little wonky about it.

I believe one of the things that makes me uncomfortable with the format is something that was briefly touched on by notadave.   KD has no vehicle for dialogue, once you’ve stated your “position,” that’s pretty much it for your public participation process, while that works for city council public comment, it doesn’t necessarily work for fostering a give and take of thoughts and ideas.   If someone makes a “statement” from a place of sounding like an authority figure, but in actuality their information is incorrect or their logic is faulty, how is a casual participant in their local democracy supposed to wade through endless statements from some named folk but the majority of anonymous participants and decide what is relevant and what is not?  

Robert V. protestations that no matter how KD debut into Alameda politics was framed that there would always be a perception of bias.   However, I think that the criticism of the Alameda question about Alameda Point is not solely about bias, although I also think there is a possible problem there as well, but more of the awkwardness in the phrasing of the question.   There are many ways to get input about the Alameda Point issue, but limiting the “answer” to “yes,” “no,” “neutral,” and “maybe” stifles the discussion to severly limited points of view.   

While the question is one that could be a valuable discussion point, it should have been more nuanced as to what aspect should be left entirely in the hands of Alameda residents.   The “Alameda residents and politicians” is also a point that should be further clarified and is open to much debate, after all how is an “Alameda politician” defined?  If we are just talking about our local governing body: the City Council, then the answer could have been ended at “Alameda residents” as the only way to sit on our local governing body would be to first be a resident and then elected.   If we talk about “Alameda politicians” are we talking about politicians that Alameda voters vote to elect and then that opens it up to the county, state, and national level.

The term “development plans” is very vague as well, which part of the “development plans” are we talking about.  The “development” process is a complex and complicated one and so the question, as broad and as vague as it is is open to a number of different interpretations in which “yes,” “no,” “neutral,” and “maybe” could be the answer given by any one person.

Here’s the thing, I think KD would have been more successful if there had been a critical mass of Alameda subscribers on their website chomping at the bit to open an Alameda forum.   Maybe they could have created the first question as: “Should there be a Kitchen Democracy forum about Alameda?”  If that magical number of 50 subscribers sign up and say resoundingly, “yes” then you have a mechanism in which the full control of the content (according to Robert V.) takes over and Kitchen Democracy itself doesn’t need to step in to pose the first oddly written and contextualized question.   Maybe rather than just trying to call up the League of Women Voters in Alameda for a quickie quote for a press release, KD should have solicited input on what a good starting question would be for the City of Alameda.   And if KD was insistent on touching on the Alameda Point issue, than the League would have been a much more balanced group than Action Alameda to consult.  Or consult both prior to launching, what was the rush for KD if they wanted to come up with a well crafted, well thought out question that would resonate with Alameda residents?

To digress a bit and speaking of Press Releases, so I noticed this morning that Alameda Daily News has posted as a part of the Monday, October 29, 2007 news, a press release e-mailed out about Julia Park Tracey.  Here’s the odd thing, in my email it said “Embargoed until Nov. 1.”   Now one would think that a venerable newsman like Don Roberts would understand what a press embargo is, but apparently not.

But back to KD, here’s the thing that I find fascinating, apparently someone at KD (or that really likes KD) wants KD to work out in Alameda, so much so that s/he has decided to take out some very targeted google ads directing folks to the KD site on Alameda.  I discovered the ads when I was searching for the Alameda Journal, sometimes the links don’t work from the RSS search so I have to do a manual google search.

So I thought to myself, “Self, do you think this is the case for other news outlets as well?”  The answer is, “yes” for the Alameda Times Star:

Also “yes” for the Alameda Sun, but a fat “no” for the Alameda Daily News, no screen caps, you’ll have to take my word for it.   So I tried some other search terms, “Alameda Issues” hit:

But not “Alameda” by itself:

I then wondered if the same kind of direct marketing was also in place for Berkeley, a big “no” on an advertisement for the “Berkeley Daily Planet” and “no” on advertising on “Berkeley issues.”

So if the pay per clicks funding is coming from KD one (and by “one” I mean, me) wonders why they are pushing so hard to break into the Alameda market.   And if it is not coming from KD then one (and by “one”…etc….) wonders why that elusive someone is pushing so hard for Alamedans to use KD as their political weapon of choice.