Look, there is a fairly bright line between blogging and news reporting. While there is some overlap, generally news reporters try to keep blog-like tendencies out of actual newsy items. This is not to say that most reporters and journalists, if not all, have their share of deep biases but in general they try to keep that on the down low.
I love opinions, I love reading them, what I don’t love is when what is essentially an editorial dressed up as “real” news. Case in point, Dennis Evanvosky’s “news analysis” that was drafted for last week’s Alameda Sun. Interestingly enough, the on-line version contains no caveat that the piece is a “news analysis” as opposed to a real report giving the illusion that there was actual reporting done as opposed to someone getting his writing points from a specific group of people with a very large ax to grind.
What is notable is this “analysis” is now being used by a new citizens group: Citizens for a Better Alameda, which — let’s be honest — is probably the same group of people that make up Action Alameda and their affiliated satellite arms to show how the actions at the December 28th City Council meeting were somehow illegal even though Dennis Evanvosky was very careful to add the word “may” to every allegation he laid out in his analysis.
Citizens for a Better Alameda has sent out a large email blast (ironically the list of recipients are blind carbon copied) essentially asking everyone to come to Tuesday night’s City Council meeting for Browbeating Part Deux, this time, they don’t have to wait around for the non-agenda public comment period because Doug deHaan has so generously placed on this agenda as part of the Council Referral process: “clarification” at the public’s request about how all this shook down.
First, it would probably help if Dennis Evanovsky actually got some basic facts right. Such as the fact that the vote to place Terri Highsmith was actually unanimous. He wrote:
The mayor and city council started the New Year with a closed session in which the trio voted to put both City Attorney Teresa Highsmith and Interim City Manager Anne Marie Gallant on administrative leave. Councilmembers Doug deHaan and Beverly Johnson voted “no” on the move.
And in his analysis, he speculated:
The vote on Highsmith served little purpose as the former city attorney had already left town, popping up in Barstow with that city’s mayor introducing her as “Terri Highsmith, Barstow’s new city attorney.” A closer look at the matter revealed that Highsmith is really working for the law firm of Colontuono & Levin (“City Attorney Highsmith Bails Out for Barstow,” Dec. 30).
In actuality, Terri Highsmith had not resigned from Alameda at that time, and unfortunately the City Council cannot just assume that she had resigned given that — from all reports — she was denying that she had taken the Barstow job as a contract with Colantuono and Levin. It is still unclear if she has yet to resign as Alameda’s City Attorney.
Then there is all the stuff quoting the Brown Act and the Charter and the purported violations of the two, but I’ve already covered that in detail here, here and here.
And the issues regarding Christina Baines, John Knox White covered in his City Hall Confidential column on the Island:
Longtime administrative staffer Christina Baines is back on the job after being placed on administrative leave along with City Attorney Teresa Highsmith and Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant, for whom Baines worked. Sources told City Hall Confidential that the administrative leave occurred while Baines was on vacation, and that she did not miss a day of work.
The issue had nothing to do with Baines’ job performance, sources told us: She was placed on leave so her computer login could be temporarily disabled, protecting her from being put in the position of being asked by her boss to access information on her behalf, sources said.
And finally, yesterday afternoon the City put out a Press Release which — hopefully — will put to rest all of these accusations of illegal acts. We all know that it won’t in some people’s minds, but it would probably take a Presidential declaration to convince that particular group. From the Press Release:
To ensure that its actions were lawful, the City Council retained Edward Kreisberg of Meyers Nave, a local Bay Area law firm that represents public agencies, as special counsel to advise the City Council on procedural issues related to the City’s Charter Officers. Mr. Kreisberg specializes in providing labor and employment litigation services and advice to public and private employers throughout California. He advised the City Council that all aspects of the December 28, 2010 closed session, including the Council’s deliberations, fully complied with the noticing provisions of the Brown Act, the City Charter, and Ms. Gallant’s employment contract.
In discussing the City Council’s actions, Mayor Marie L. Gilmore affirmed that Ms. Gallant was not terminated. “Ann Marie Gallant is still an employee of the City of Alameda and will remain so until the end of her contract…”
If someone wants to argue about whether or not Edward Kreisberg is…um “legally retarded” or an “ignorant clown” I’m sure that he would be more than happy to put his legal bona fides against anyone who would claim that his legal interpretation is faulty.
So here is a real, actual quote from a neighbor about the “firings” that weren’t “I read it in the paper, Kate, it HAS to be true!” Well, no, sez I, you see it is this way. . . Shortly after the discussion, I asked someone who would know about the Editor of The Sun, Evanosky. So I guess he has become the official Action Alameda organ for now, because the article he wrote was not factual, researched, or balanced which is sad because I have always liked The Sun as a spunky little paper with lots of local content. I hope Dennis follows up with an article that lays out the true facts so my neighbor can “Read it in the paper.”
Comment by Kate Quick — January 14, 2011 @ 6:41 am
So…Lauren begins with her frequent distinction between “reporters” and “bloggers,” implying that reporters have an obligation to objectivity that bloggers, like her, do not. That conveniently lets her off the hook for what follows, about as subjective a criticism as one could get. She overlooks the fact that every newspaper also includes op-ed, opinion and analysis. Evanosky’s article is clearly labelled “news analysis” in the print version, which is what most of our neighbors read.
So her analysis of his analysis is way off the mark. He is not a stooge for Citizens for a Better Alameda, or anyone else, nor is his take on the shenanigans of city council unusual, or a perspective not shared by a majority of intelligent Alamedans, or at least those not part of the Slate’s fan club. It’s always telling to see what Lauren seizes on next — always from her biased point of view — so it is hilarious that a news analysis piece in the Sun would raise her hackles.
Comment by Dennis Green — January 14, 2011 @ 8:00 am
You’re just having fun with today’s Post right? “…reporters and journalists, if not all, have their share of deep biases but in general they try to keep that on the down low.”
Comment by Jack Richard — January 14, 2011 @ 8:49 am
Jack R: the operative word was “try”, some do manage it more successfully than others.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 14, 2011 @ 8:54 am
OF the two, Lauren has much more journalistic integrity than Dennis Evanvosky. There have been numerous opinion pieces identified as news in the Sun over the last few months. Dennis gets away with it because quite frankly, the only reason anyone reads the sun is for the amusement to be found in the letters section.
Comment by notadave — January 14, 2011 @ 9:07 am
My main gripe is stating or implying “facts” that are not researched. Mr. Evanosky has a right to write op ed but the factual basis for his opinions, as a journalist, should be sound. No one was fired, and unless someone was fired, no Charter violations occurred. The proper noticing complaint was highly subjective, too. He could have consulted someone in the civil service legal trade for an opinion and not just relied on the complainer’s opinions, which to my mind were just plain wrong. Even if he had said “some believe that X was not appropriate; others that it should have been Y” it would have been more accurate, fair and balanced.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 14, 2011 @ 9:14 am
Thanks for making me ruin my keyboard shooting coffee out my nose. Where do I send the bill?
Comment by Adam Gillitt — January 14, 2011 @ 10:33 am
Evanovsky’s “news analysis” piece in the January 6 Alameda Sun would have been fine if he had done two things:
1) Reported accurately what actions were actually taken and by what votes (see Lauren’s critique above, with which I agree completely), and
2) Reported the other (City Council/City of Alameda) side of the supposed Brown Act or City Charter violations.
Since his “analysis” was missing one entire side of the story and was inaccurate on the other half, that story flunks the basic journalistic tests of accuracy, fairness, and completeness.
Whether the alleged violations of the Brown Act or the City Charter are held up in court is an entirely different matter, and those decisions must be made in court, not in blogs or newspaper accounts.
Regardless of Lauren’s claims to the contrary (that she is not a journalist), most of her posts are *at least* as accurate and comprehensive as either of the hardcopy newspapers on the island. She contributes accurately to our public discourse, which is much more than i can say about some of her detractors’ favorite bloggers (David Howard, Adam Gillitt, Denise Lai).
vital information
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 14, 2011 @ 10:34 am
8: Please ignore “vital information.” It is an editorial artifact that should have been deleted. (Darn these tiny boxes and this tiny print…)
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 14, 2011 @ 10:36 am
Lauren and her apologists keep making my point: that objectivity depends on whose ox is being gored, and so long as Lauren and her sycophants continue defending their Chosen Ones, we can always predict what they will say and think. At least Evanosky is unpredictable, and will sometimes defend and justify the Slate, sometimes not.
And the divisions in Alameda will not be settled in the courts, any more than they have been at the ballot box. Measures A & E were both defeated at the polls, but their supporters persisted, and for all we know, still do on both counts!
Comment by Dennis Green — January 14, 2011 @ 11:46 am
Objectivity is a goal to which journalists strive but, being human, often fall short. However, Evanovsky’s piece was just not reported or written well: no attribution, no sign of investigating issues on his own. It looked like he merely copied from various blog posts. My hard-nosed, curmudgeonly journalism professor, Art Weimer, would have loved to edit this “analysis.” The red ink would have flowed like wine over the copy and his verbal critique would have Evanovsky running for cover.
Comment by Linda Hudson — January 14, 2011 @ 11:59 am
Oh crap, Professor WIMER would have my head for misspelling his name.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Comment by Linda Hudson — January 14, 2011 @ 12:02 pm
This site is so thoroughly dedicated to distorting the truth that there’s no point in posting any opposiing opinions here. There’s no real discussion going on here.
Comment by dlm — January 14, 2011 @ 1:53 pm
post 13, Good go to Alameda Post or Action Alameda. They never distort the truth and they have open and honest discussions. You’ll love it there.
Comment by John piziali — January 14, 2011 @ 2:02 pm
#14: True to form. Nothing to offer but snotty comments. No content.
Comment by dlm — January 14, 2011 @ 2:55 pm
So why are you still here.
Comment by John piziali — January 14, 2011 @ 3:19 pm
Maybe it’s a good idea to have the same attorney that the City Council hired to investigate the LT situation–see his Youtubes–meet with this new Press Release law firm attorney that the new Mayor/City Council has recently hired and give us the outcome of their analysis on this. Combining the old and new on this issue might be incredibly helpful to us.
Comment by Jeannie — January 14, 2011 @ 8:24 pm
dlm: when you decide to post your full name and address I will unmoderate your last comment.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 14, 2011 @ 9:27 pm
Post 18, dlm yes I’m a contractor living in the West End for 67 years. Did you notice that in 27 years I’ve never had one complaint filed against me. Was your post somehow supposed to be some kind of threat. Maybe you should ask my customers if they have any problem with my politics. Do you really think I care that you can go on line and get this information. Its there for anyone who wants it.
I don’t see Adam, Dennis, or Denise crying about no discussion going on here. They just come on and fight it out with whoever is taking them on. I still think you should just go somewhere else and cry about how terrible this site is.
Comment by John piziali — January 14, 2011 @ 9:27 pm
WOW dlm, I just posted and all of a sudden your post was gone, well like Lauren says either put up or shut up. I’ll be gone this weekend so I won’t be able to carry this on until Monday.
Comment by John piziali — January 14, 2011 @ 9:35 pm
one of the funniest things is to read the letters to the editor of the sun, journal, etc.
I read them out loud in an Abraham Simpson voice for accuracy.
http://ramblingfish.com/__oneclick_uploads/2008/08/grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud_001.jpg
Comment by E — January 15, 2011 @ 9:23 am
Wow, saw Darcy’s post in my reader. For someone who spends so much time confusing discussion of ideas and positions with personal attacks, how amazing was it to watch her post someone’s home address and accuse them of a lack of moral ethics.
When people talk about personal attacks in Alameda, this is what they look like. No criticism of a behavior, or an idea, just a flat out attack on the person.
Comment by John Knox White — January 15, 2011 @ 10:08 am
22. JKW, I’m afraid confusing analysis with personal attacks is common to this site. You and Lauren, Spangler and Hudson do it all the time. For months, you’ve all been attacking the ICM and CA without making any substantive criticism of their policies. Just “management style” and “lack of transparency” and other vague points. We’re left to conclude that what really put the bug up there was their very effective handling of SunCal, which you all continued ton defend after the defeat of Measure B.
And now Alameda is once again the laughing stock of the Bay Area, thanks to the front page article in today’s SF Chronicle about our “two-timing” City Attorney and her employment gymnastics with Barstow. Our city council majority comes off sounding deceptive and duplicitous. Yes, they may be skirting the letter of the law with their “non-firings,” but simply violate the spirit and the intention of those laws. What job candidate with any smarts or integrity would want to work for such crooks? And are we really as crooked as our representatives appear?
Comment by Dennis Green — January 15, 2011 @ 10:58 am
#18, #19, etc: Okay, so you want me to believe that the State Contractor’s Licensing Board is violating the privacy of contractors? I suggest you contact them and ask them not to put your name and address online.
Right, yes, hello? This is not confidential information. My point, obviously, is that John Piziali has a vested interest in promoting development here, and that most of the folks who zealously pushing for development all of something to gain, whether it’s work, insider information, political influence — or campaign donations.
Here’s the link for the contract board’s site again. It is dishonest in the extreme, not to mention inane, to pretend that information already online and visible to all is confidential.
https://www2.cslb.ca.gov/OnlineServices/CheckLicenseII/ContractorBondingHistory.aspx?LicNum=538649
Cllick on the link and see.
Comment by dlm — January 15, 2011 @ 12:43 pm
And to John Knox White — I think we should talk because you need to stop trying to intimidate me. I think you may have my email address already.
Comment by dlm — January 15, 2011 @ 12:47 pm
#23
“Crooks”? The vote was 5-0 to put Highsmith on administrative leave. I would never go so far as to call DeHaan and Johnson crooks? Do you have anything to back that up?
Comment by Linda Hudson — January 15, 2011 @ 12:52 pm
The only one that looked like a “crook” in that article was Highsmith: working for a law firm where she directed $60K of work while STILL serving as Alameda’s City Attorney. How gullible do Alamedans need to be to see that this is just WRONG.
Comment by Alamedan1 — January 15, 2011 @ 1:01 pm
And here again is the shocking and horrifying information I posted on John Piziali, taken from the state’s Contractor Licensing Board site, with specifics deleted:
License Number 538649
Extract Date: 1/15/2011
Business Information
JOHN PIZIALI GENERAL CONTRACTOR
XXX TAYLOR AVENUE
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
Business Phone Number:(510) 522-xxxx
Entity: Sole Ownership
Issue Date 08/18/1988
Expire Date 08/31/2012
License Status This license is current and active. All information below should be reviewed
Comment by dlm — January 15, 2011 @ 2:50 pm
So DLM. What is the purpose of posting Piziali’s license and details? Are you hoping for people do something with this info?
If you are posting John’s name, address, and partial phone number,
Are you willing to post your own FULL NAME, address and phone number?
Comment by ReadySetGo — January 15, 2011 @ 3:36 pm
#30: ReadySetGo, I’ve already explained why and I don’t see anything complicated about this at all.
If you can prove that I have any personal motive for opposing SunCal as the developer, then fine, I’ll post my name and address, tho — very obviously — I don’t. None of the people opposed to this project have anything to gain personally, yet almost every major player who’s zealously in favor of it has something to gain.
The people who have a self-interest ought to declare that very clearly, something that John Piziali never did.
I posted this information again to make clear what it is, that it’s taken from a public site and not at all confidential. I wasn’t expecting all this hysteria.
And incidentally, who are you?
Comment by dlm — January 15, 2011 @ 4:21 pm
DLM – the idea that because John is a contractor he automatically has a financial interest in development at the point is completely laughable! I am an architect, and I favor development at the point, but I have no expectation that it will have any benefit for me professionally.
Either you have no understanding of how projects of that scale are done, or your just grasping at straws in an attempt to malign those with whom you disagree.
It is entirely possible for someone to support development solely because they think it’s the right thing to do, and not because they’re bloodthirsty hyenas out to devour the island’s children.
Comment by David burton — January 15, 2011 @ 5:08 pm
Oh, my, I guess our try at civil discourse didn’t last more than one day. Posting information on Mr. Pizialli, a person known in this community to operate with highest integrity gets us nowhere. Posting videos of my house got us nowhere too. I do think we have been specific in our criticisms – I have discussed what I have been concerned about – attracting risk unnecessarily in conducting negotiations, staging a political “hit job” on Lena Tam, exceeding the ICM’s limit on expenditures, engaging in political activities while employed as a civil servant, taking excessive roles (planning director, finance director, having so many acting dept. heads) being a polarizing figure instead of being looked to for encouragement of collaborative, positive community work, stuff like that.
I respect that there is more than one view of the ICM and do not deny that she did appear to do some worthy things in the finance area, but on balance I think it is a good thing that we are getting a permanent City Manager, soon.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 15, 2011 @ 5:18 pm
A double dose of pompous blowhard nonsense — this is truly a waste of time.
Comment by dlm — January 15, 2011 @ 7:11 pm
33: Darcy,
I fail to see what useful purpose the publishing of John Piziali’s residence address and other contact info serves, as only his CA contractor’s license might apply to your (off-base) argument.
FWIW, the publishing of someone else’s personal information online (residence addresses, phone numbers) is considered unacceptable because it borders on stalking. (Most people who publish others’ home addresses are usually interested in political retribution, such as anti-abortion activists publishing the home addresses of abortion providers. Is that your intention? I doubt it, but that is why the do-not-publish-others’ personal data protocol is in effect here and elsewhere.)
As I recall, John Piziali told me last year that he was going to vote AGAINST Measure B and SunCal. In any case, you can bet that his business is not one of those that will probably benefit from the redevelopment of AP, as David Burton pointed out.
DLM accused John Piziali of having “a vested interest in promoting development here, and that most of the folks who zealously pushing for development all of something to gain, whether it’s work, insider information, political influence — or campaign donations.”
DLM, do you operate on that basis yourself? If you do, I can begin to understand why you might assume that everyone else behaves in the same way and for the same reasons that you do…But you can stop projecting….
Not everyone bases his/her political views or development decisions on personal financial gain. I do not know why you or anyone else would believe that I, or John Piziali, or anyone else here – on any side of an issue – would decide what to support based on the motives you ascribe.
I’m not going to benefit from development at AP at all financially, either, and have never received any compensation, work, or other advantages from my association with SunCal. (Despite opposing SunCal since last fall, I still support a Calthorpe-style TOD at AP – independent of SunCal, of course.)
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 15, 2011 @ 11:37 pm
23: Dennis, you claim that we “have all been attacking the ICM and CA without making any substantive criticism of their policies.”
That claim is wrong and disingenuous.
We have been discussing the policies and substantive actions of the ICM and the CA all along. We never opposed either one based on how they looked or how they parted their hair.
The issues and policy decisions included (shortened list):
1. Censorship of the July 4 parade.
2. The ICM’s creation of an attitude of fear and intimidation among city employees since her arrival.
3. The ICM’s decimation of the functioning city staff committee that was negotiating with SunCal, replacing competent and well-informed employees with staffers who had no prior experience negotiating development agreements with SunCal for AP.
4. The ICM’s hiring of Graphtek for multiple contracts under her $75K cap in order to “re-brand” Alameda and develop.
5. The ICM’s issuing of a financial services contracts in excess of her $75K authority with two bonding consultants, for which she was publicly chastised by the City Council in open session for her illegal behavior.
6. Her readily apparent efforts to oppose SunCal’s efforts as a master developer when the City of Alameda was legally bound to negotiate “in good faith” with them, and she failed to do so.
You may or may not agree with how important these issues are but all of them have been documented and discussed at length here, That makes your comment more of a personal attack than a contribution to constructive dialogue.
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 15, 2011 @ 11:54 pm
dlm
I disagree with your decision to publish John Piziali’s address. John has no direct interest in the development of the Point. He served on the Planning Board for several years and is an outstanding member of this community.
We should be able to agree to disagree with each other on issues without resorting to publishing their personal contact information for purposes of retribution.
It’s clear people have strong views about the ICM, etc and I doubt those views can or will be changed anytime soon. This blog like all the blogs gives us an opportunity to share our views, yet we all have a responsibility to be civil and respect each other in light of our various viewpoints.
There is a national debate going on right now about changing the tone and civility; let’s try to get back to the civil tone we were working on earlier.
Comment by Karen Bey — January 16, 2011 @ 8:04 am
As Jon Spangler stated, I’m pretty sure that John Piziali actually opposed Measure B and was not a fan of SunCal.
And it’s fairly common knowledge that John P. both lives on the West End and that he is a general contractor. There was no need to post his address, phone number and contractors license. Those facts were never in dispute.
Any other speculation about his motivations based on generally agreed facts is just that — speculation — and could be characterized as “nonsense.”
Comment by Lauren Do — January 16, 2011 @ 8:34 am
I don’t know what the purpose of DLM posting John Piziali’s address, phone and contractor number.
Interesting to note that while the address and phone number is partially ommitted, DLM did post the full contractor ID for all to see. Once the ID is there, it’s trivial to google search to get the full address and phone number.
I can only speculate DLM’s motives. But since DLM posted John’s contractor ID, perhaps it is meant to cause financial harm to John.
Curious that DLM keeps complaining about what a “waste of time” it is to be commenting on Lauren’s site. Yet DLM keeps coming back to waste more time.
Comment by ReadySetGo — January 16, 2011 @ 10:24 am
#30 DLM speaking of vested financial interest on John P.
Let’s turn the tables. What are your vested financial interest in this discussion on Suncal? Do you own residential/rental or commercial property on Alameda? Are you opposed to any development on Alameda point, which comprises nearly 1/3 of Alameda?
You want John P to disclose yet what are you disclosing? Nothing?
Comment by ReadySetGo — January 16, 2011 @ 10:30 am
Lauren, there is an item on the agenda to bring up the Dec 28 closed door meeting re ICM and Highsmith. Doug deHaan is the requestor.
Jan 18 7pm at city hall.
===================================
http://www.cityofalamedaca.gov/City-Hall/Calendar-of-Events?id=930
8.A. Consider Providing Detailed Information to the Public regarding the December 28, 2010 Special City Council Meeting and Clarifying the Process and Brown Act Compliance. (Councilmember deHaan)
http://www.cityofalamedaca.gov/getdoc.cfm?id=3730
Comment by ReadySetGo — January 16, 2011 @ 10:41 am
Here’s the contact information for the Contractors State License Board. If you object to having a contractor’s name, phone and [BUSINESS] address online, then I suggest you contact them and say so.
Contact CSLB
Location: Contractors State License Board
9821 Business Park Drive
Sacramento, CA 95827
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 26000
Sacramento, CA 95826
24 Hour Licensing & Consumer Information: 1-800-321-CSLB (2752)
And here, for the third or fourth time, is the website:
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/GeneralInformation/About/ContactCslb.asp
Comment by dlm — January 16, 2011 @ 11:31 am
For some unknown reason, you feel obliged to manufacture phony outrage over a non-event — the posting of public information. There’s probably no rational reason, it’s just that you get off on playing this weird, creepy little game, quite literally for its own sake.
YOu know, it’s interesting, I can’t think of any kind of rational or ethical consideration that would make any difference here, whether it’s open debate, the benefit to the community, whatever, it doesn’t count. Of course, simply reciting the facts is totally useless too.
You’re educated and intelligent people, but you’re stuck on playing this creepy little spin game.
As I said before, this is truly a waste of time. Communication is very obviously a waste of time.
Comment by dlm — January 16, 2011 @ 11:41 am
Dlm, I cannot understand your point in the posting, other than to create damage to John P, financial and/or reputation. That is not civil discourse in anyone’s definition of good practice.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 16, 2011 @ 11:49 am
Darcy,
You and I have met and spoken so I have some sense of who or what is behind the words you post. I would not call us allies, but even if you annoy me at times I wouldn’t call us enemies either, nor do I wish bad things toward you. So I hope you can trust that I don’t mean to attack you when I say as a semi-objective observer, I find your behavior more than mildly hypocritical. You protestations of John Knox White trying to intimidate you seem absurd. What makes an attempt to defend oneself against personal attack an act of intimidation? Where specifically in his posts are the threats?
It’s fine that all the information about John P. is public but that doesn’t explain why you posted it, which sure seems like an attempt to intimidate.
John P. seemed to have gotten fed up with the contradiction in your persistence in criticizing this blog, yet sticking around and posting so often, and so he asked why you don’t bug off? If you can cast all the aspersions you a cast against others but are going react so strongly over a comment like that, maybe you should take do some serious chillin’ sister.
Being steeped in these dialogues periodically causes me to lose all perspective, which either warrants a break or intervention like a meditation class. Great weather for a walk.
Comment by M.I. — January 16, 2011 @ 12:02 pm
Again, DLM, I don’t think anyone is denying contractors’ contact details are available publicly. If someone found your address and phone number in some public record and posted them, alongside some wrong-headed hypothesis about your motives, would that be okay? You haven’t answered people’s questions about why you did this. Don’t go all DH and creepy, please. Your contributions are usually very intelligent.
Comment by BC — January 16, 2011 @ 1:12 pm
MI: Yes, I think we’re politically similar and I appreciate that. Without anger, tho, I think it’s my own business when I choose to post and when I don’t. On the personal level, it just annoys me when I make the effort to post something substantive and all I get back are “sez you” comments.
As for self-interest: how many people are there on this site who’d meet me half way on that subject? I could carry on an objective discussion, but I’d be a masochist to even consider doing that.
Comment by dlm — January 16, 2011 @ 1:33 pm
DLM: You are ignoring the fact that your theory about John P. is based on the faulty premise that John P. both supported Measure B and SunCal.
You are also ignoring the fact, as pointed out by David Burton, that projects on the scale of what would happen at Alameda Point would not be sourced out to a small general contractor like John P. John P. is not equivalent to a Warmington Homes or Ghilotti Construction. The personal financial benefit to him would be negligible and indirect.
The only instance when it would have been appropriate to post that information about John P. is if someone had denied that he either lived on the West End or that he was a general contractor. Anything short of that was unnecessary. You could have easily have posted your “John P. stands to gain financially” theory without going to the lengths that you did.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 16, 2011 @ 1:56 pm
#46: Thanks.
Here’s some contact information from David Burton’s website. Is this an invasion of privacy?
BURTON ARCHITECTURE
2723 8TH STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94710
T 510.848.5250
E INFO@BURTONARCHITECT.COM
It’s business contact information, the same as the information on the Contractors Licensing Board. And yes, there was most certainly an effort here, by some people, to spin this as an invasion of privacy, which it isn’t.
On the one hand, I don’t believe that everyone in the design/building field is automatically prejudiced, but on the other hand, I have seen very self-interested attempts by these folks to exploit the Smart Growth movement, and that seems to be the norm.
I think anyone who has this type of interest ought to disclose it.
Comment by dlm — January 16, 2011 @ 1:56 pm
#48: Don’t most business people want their contact informmation on the internet? Don’t they pay to put it there?
Here’s some more business contact info taken from MI’s website. Obviously, if I copy this, it’s not an invasion of privacy.
“For a consultation or quote on a remodeling project, please contact me at:
M.I.
835 Oak Street, Alameda, California
Tel: 510.521.8903″
I don’t know why you’re trying so hard to deflect this whole issue.
Comment by dlm — January 16, 2011 @ 2:10 pm
DLM: I’m with you. While I’m still active in real estate development and marketing, I have an overriding concern for the well being of Alameda, so I do my best to park my personal interests at the door of my politics, but that ain’t easy! Those who promote or favor this or that development, or vote for it, isn’t the point, but anyone whose views. And opinions might be skewed by gain.
And obviously Spangler is still leaning in favor of a type of development plan at AP that only SunCal has proposed, so don’t believe for one minute that he or wife Linda Hudson are unbiased commentors. Still 5,000 homes at the Point! No traffic mitigation in sight. I can only hope Mr. Spangler lives on the West End!
Comment by Dennis Green — January 16, 2011 @ 3:18 pm
Hey I’m home, dlm your post #24.
The one thing that I didn’t get to tell you is the fact that I’m almost totally retired. Most posters were correct that I was against SunCal and voted against measure B. If you had taken the time to know who you were making comments about you would have known this. Part of your post is just a flat lie, and I still feel like everyone else that you were trying to intimadate me.
I know that this is not nice to say but my personal opinion of you at this time is that you are a total scumbag.
My original post to you was simply, if you don’t like this site then why post on it. There was no reason for you to go after me on a personnal level. I notice you spent the whole weekend on this site so I guess I won’t get my wish, which would be for you to go some where else and let us get back to fighting amongst our selves.
Comment by John piziali — January 16, 2011 @ 3:47 pm
Hey Dennis, whats wrong with the WEST END, we would even let you live here. Maybe.
Comment by John piziali — January 16, 2011 @ 3:51 pm
DLM: please will you disclose your profession (if any) and qualifications (if any) so we can make judgments about your motives?
Comment by BC — January 16, 2011 @ 4:16 pm
Pizali:
Nothing wrong with the West End! Tattoo paroles and a few bars that survive…but I miss the Squids. Don’t you?
And why in he’ll would you begrudge a little promotion? I have a “No On A” sign on my lawn and no one has messed with it yet! The land mines might just discourage them…but Fools rush in where Rush Limbaugh fears to tread.
But I wouldn’t live waaayyy over there if you paid my rent. Too toxic! And most of the island will be underwater, but not in my lifetime! All of this speculation is beside the point, but still fun.
Comment by Dennis Green — January 16, 2011 @ 5:03 pm
46-49:
Darcy, I still do not get it.
Nothing you have said since posting John Piziali’s contact info here supports your stated premise (#24: “…John Piziali has a vested interest in promoting development here…”).
The only “sez you” critique I am seeing here is that:
a) the information about John does not connect at all with your premise, and
b) since it is not related, we are wondering why you posted it. (Are you trying to intimidate him? Make it easier for others who oppose redevelopment at AP to vandalize or target his address? There IS a history of recent incitement like this here in Alameda…)
You claimed that John or other Alamedans with a financial stake in the construction business automatically “have a vested interest in the outcome of redeveloping AP,” but have yet to provide any substantiation for your (apparently self-evident to you) point.
If you want to be taken seriously I am happy to oblige you – and I have in the past. But you have not yet offered us anything of substance – and with proof – to make a “serious” engagement possible on this thread.
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 16, 2011 @ 5:19 pm
post#53 dlm, simple question, got any answers.??? I said answers not more political B.S.
Comment by John piziali — January 16, 2011 @ 5:59 pm
dlm, say and write what you want, please.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 16, 2011 @ 6:57 pm
Thanks for reminding me how ugly, creepy and weird this site is.
John P, if you want to speak to me, you can get my email address from Lauren.
Comment by dlm — January 16, 2011 @ 8:50 pm
I think we need to ignore dim for awhile. She’s acting like a stalking horse for you-know-who. Maybe she needs a nap?
Comment by Linda Hudson — January 16, 2011 @ 8:58 pm
Whaaa? DLM is calling this a creepy site?
DLM was the one who posted John P’s contact info. And who’s calling this site creepy?
I guess there is nothing creepy with a stranger posting someone’s address, phone number, contractor ID.
DLM, If there’s nothing creepy with unsolicited posting of someone’s addresses, phone, and identifying info such as contractor ID. Care to share your address, phone to everyone here?
Hypocrite often?
Comment by ReadySetGo — January 16, 2011 @ 9:28 pm
dlm, why not just post your full name, address, and phone number here so I can get in touch with you. thanks John P.
Comment by John piziali — January 17, 2011 @ 9:51 am
Darcy L Morrison
XXX Street
Alameda CA
Planet Earth?,
I don’t consider my blog commenting to be a huge asset to my business and in fact I’ve always assumed if anything it’s a liability.
I post with initials so that Googling my name does not bring up random comments from the blogosphere, but I am also trying not to be anonymous, so I post with a link to my web site so that I am not accused of commenting anonymously. I could keep a personal web site for that purpose, but I’m too lazy and don’t want to spend the money.
DLM used to post under full name but also “down sized”, I assume for similar reasons.
I used to not concern myself with working in this town because of off island referrals and with all of my community involvements if 100% of my work were on the island too I would begin to suffocate. In this economy I’m a little more contrite about that one, but on blogging I’ve waded in so far I figure there is no turning back.
Comment by M.I. — January 17, 2011 @ 10:39 am
oh DLM, surely you can post your full address.
Are you now understanding why people are upset at your posting John P’s address, phone, and contractor ID?
Truth hurts huh
Comment by ReadySetGo — January 17, 2011 @ 11:48 am
Hypocrisy RULES! Nothing creepy about the fact that all those accusing Darcy of intimidation, (a big, strong guy like John P?), then go on to intimidate her as strenuously as possible. “Truth hurts…” not satisfied with just writing the truth, but it has to hurt! Maybe that will shut her up!
Multiple sides of mouth.
Comment by Dennis Green — January 17, 2011 @ 12:28 pm
64. Dennis, it was DLM who was intimidating John P by posting John’s address, phone, and contractor ID.
Sorry if this is too confusing for ya.
Comment by ReadySetGo — January 17, 2011 @ 12:32 pm
Dennis. Let me state the order of events. Correct me if I am wrong.
1. DLM posts John P’s address, phone number, and contractor ID.
2. Lauren jumps in and removes the DLM post.
3. DLM posts John’s info again.
Saying there is nothing wrong with posting John’s info.
4. I challenge DLM, if there is nothing wrong with posting somebody’s personal info. Then DLM should post their own address and phone number for all to see.
Still waiting…
Comment by ReadySetGo — January 17, 2011 @ 1:00 pm
RSG, correct on the order of events. But you leave out the part about all the posts designed to put down and intimidate DLM. The name-calling, the accusations. Anyone could object to that first post without descending to the same level they accuse her of. If we’re going to “take it down a notch,” that means everybody. I’m trying to be more civil, but it’s not easy when so many others just get toasty with their criticisms. And I wish Lauren would call more people on their b.s. who just happen to agree with her!
Comment by Dennis Green — January 17, 2011 @ 5:04 pm
dlm. post#30
“the people who have a self-interest ought to declare that very clearly, something that John Piziali never did.” post#24″my point, obviously is, that John Piziali has a vested interest in promoting development here.”
At this point do you still stand by these comments, after you have been able to find out that I never was in favor of meas. B or SunCal. I thought you wanted honest dialog here.?
Comment by John piziali — January 17, 2011 @ 9:17 pm
For those interested in such things, word is that DH and his group will be out in force again tomorrow night to hector the Council about the “firings” that weren’t. Doug deHaan has a referral on the agenda to give the subject an opening. So if you would like to be there to hear first hand what happened (the truth, not DH’s “Stalinist Purge”, etc. take on events) come, or at least watch it on t.v. Civic engagement by people with a calm and reasoned demeanor will help a lot to bring a sense of civility to our public discourse. Or at least balance those who mischaracterize events to bully the elected officials.
Comment by Kate Quick — January 17, 2011 @ 9:39 pm
Kate, of course, is one of the most consistent, if subtle, bullies on this site. She sounds so reasonable, but isn’t. She sounds so civil, but manages to diss her opponents at every opportuniy.
Doesn’t really matter. Her causes are all lost causes, and Jerry’s proposal to stop all redevelopment funding will fix her little red wagon forever! The Point will become one of the most lvely wilderness areas in the East Bay.
Comment by Dennis Green — January 18, 2011 @ 9:17 pm
New Rules…..John Spangler is limited to one appearance per quarter…at CC meetings……
Comment by J.E.A. — January 18, 2011 @ 9:56 pm