The following was a presentation I prepared for
oral communications at the council meeting of Oct 18th. I was to be the
first speaker, but as I was waiting the auditorium started to fill up
with dozens of children, some as young as three who were there to have
pictures taken with the Mayor. I could not say the words below, starting
with the probable accidental death of a child, in front of these
toddlers, a few certain to still be in the audience. What I ended up
saying, which was based on this, is on the oral communication drop down
of the meeting video.
One day, a few years, or maybe even a decade from now --
there will be an article in the Coast News about a child killed
walking on the side of a street of our city, one without sidewalks like
LaCosta Ave heading toward the beach. Cars buzz by only feet away, and
probability of human error dictates one is certain to veer just enough.
There may be a short clip on the news of the mother
tearfully remembering how she repeatedly asked the city to provide a
sidewalk for her children, recounting her words to the Traffic &
Public Safety Commission, "I'm not asking, I'm begging, do not wait for
a child to die before you fix this." Finally a Commissioner telling
her, "look the city doesn't have it in the budget, so you just have to
be patient."
Every solution for traffic or Public Safety dangers
depends on availability of funds. Monday, I submitted a proposal to
the Commission to address this. Although, the City Manager
instructed it not be considered, the Commission overruled him, and
allowed it to come to a vote:
The motion was originally as follows:
In
response to new information on the limits of the Pacific View property
for an arts center, and the availability of other city owned locations,
we request a suspension of
proceeding with the purchase until an evaluation of all venues is
undertaken, with all potential savings being dedicated to public
safety.
Realizing this was too much to ask, I revised the last
part to something much less, -- only asking the council to renegotiate
clauses of the existing purchase contract for Pacific View that both Bob
Bonde, who supports the purchase, and I, happen to agree on.
The Chairman asked if was a second to this motion that would urge the council to renegotiate. I glanced over to the two
Commissioners who had previously congratulated me for my supporting a
different location for an art center that would save many millions of
dollars.
They both remained silent.
The gavel fell, The motion failed.
My resignation on Monday was not for lack of a taste for
challenges such as this, as I will sorely miss such interaction.
Rather, It was the realization that this commission, now under the
supervision of the City Manager, will be even less likely to
productively engage its broad public safety mandate.
I could no longer be a part of a city government that
placed "saving a plot of land" above saving the lives of children ---
who want nothing more than to frolic on the beach. This simply because
existing officials, and I must say other candidates for office, refuse
to seriously engage this subject.
"The Arts" a contrarian view
September 1, 2012
This essay could be seen as being about a controversial issue called "Pacific View" in the small wealthy southern California city of Encinitas where I happen to live. This is the name of the 1950s era rusting elementary school on a three acre plot near the sea shore, that after a ten year battle over arcane laws on the rights of a city to purchase unused schools property, is now under contract to be purchased at the current market value of ten million dollars.
This article is really a vehicle to look at meta-issues, those going beyond specific examples to show larger issues, such as how "Pacific View" ultimately was reduced to the "sound bites/ buzz words" that have come to define all political speech. Expanding on this, I will explore how several local policies have become impossible to address by the political (electoral system.) Among these are one about our "Mayor," who under a new law will have less actual authority than the other members of the city council, yet this reality is impossible to convey to an electorate who filters out all but their visceral understanding of simplistic concepts, IE: Mayor is the chief, Politicians are bad, Control by the voters is good. These set of simplistic truisms prevailed in this initiative in another California city over a reasoned argument among 80% of the voters.
Understanding the dynamics of the new elected mayor law requires the voter first suspending the investment he has in such "buzz word/sound bites" in organizing his world, to explore the actual law being proposed along with the interpersonal dynamics within the city council, something that deprives the average voter of a personal cognitive structure that leaves him vulnerable.
"Majority rules" is the simplest explanation of democracy, which because it is our system we rarely subject to incisive critical analysis. I couldn't ignore this since my participation in a new city commission that was given oversight over major life and death issues placed me in a position where I had to at least try to address these functions of government. This lead to my considering running for this odd position of mayor as a sounding board for discussions such as this essay; but I eventually realized that electoral politics at every level in this country has become a highly regimented activity often controlled by handlers who are masters of these operating rules. The major challenge is following standards that resonate with the increasing "sound bite/buzzword" voters, so it's not what you say that gets you elected, but what you don't get caught saying that will lose the election. The covert recording of Mitt Romney's "47% are takers" presentation illustrates this, as he suspended the above rules and committed the ultimate mistake, being candid about his views." Having a political system that requires its elected officials to obfuscate and dissemble creates a whole host of problems, that for now I'll just take as a given without further exploration.
Purchase of Pacific View was achieved by a single vote majority of the city council after an email-based campaign that mobilized about two percent of the voters of the city. The melodrama created by the sponsor was that of "saving this land from developers" which was energized, given more legitimacy, by it's ultimate use being to enhance "the Arts." This concept was accepted as an all encompassing "good" to such a degree that details of the center became superfluous, implying that any activity under this rubric was worth taxpayer support.
The historic juxtaposition of hundreds of children only miles away being turned away from an immigration center, barred from escaping a high risk of death, did not cause the city authorities to consider how this land could be used to provide sanctuary for these desperate children. "The Arts" had become something so internalized as to be exalted, an identifier of cultural sensitivity that transcended providing succor to these unwashed masses.
My two extensive presentation to the city council first on the impossibility of building a performance space on this land, and the other of the liabilities of city ownership, were mentioned, although mis-characterized by the "Save Pacific Beach" sponsor. The actual two videos, in one case was never was sent to his mailing list and the other it was to a link that was inactive. All of the arguments made during public sessions, other than mine, were against the purchase because the cost wast too high, with no others made against the principle of municipal ownership of this property. My attempt to use the deeply flawed "communications/ propaganda" product Open City Hall to get wider feedback was squelched by the dominating city manager, even when the request came from the "mayor."
Political life in this city, more importantly, in this country, has been reduced to this. The term political correctness is a part of this dynamic, but that phrase has taken on a triviality that negates the damage that is done whenever the unfettered addressing of difficult issues is stigmatized. To understand the effect of our restriction of acceptable language, it's useful to look at the other side, how not only is language stripped of precision by condemning, often to the point of criminalization, language relating to harsh realities of existence, there is a promotion of what is defined as "a positive outlook" such as promotion of the "the arts." Mandated happy-talk is probably a more pernicious type of social control than censorship.
What is not discussed is "the arts" has an element that can be understood as a vehicle of conspicuous consumption Thorstein Veblen's sociological concept that certainly applies to those whose accumulation of billions of dollars worth of paintings enhance their status among the world's elite. To some degree I would suggest that part of the enthusiasm of those who were so passionate about the arts can be explained by this dynamic. While they will never own a Manet, they can be part of the group that admire those that do.
This is strong enough, and so unconscious, that those who never entertained any doubts about the city prioritizing this Pacific View purchase over helping desperate refugees, never thought about how these funds could have been used to upgrade dangerous city intersections. This enthusiasm for this purchase of an arts center allows them to feel a part of the culture that values, that validates a system where the very wealthiest purchase the rarest, the finest, the most valued of objet d'art. This grassroots support was so strong that those who opposed it were accused by the then mayor of attempting to sabotage this movement, it being so sublime that those who opposed it deserved to be treated as an alien force.
Another major issue that was addressed during my period of activity in city affairs was the adoption and implementation of a product sold by Peak Democracy company. I fought it with every resource at my command, that once again was thwarted by a single vote on the city council. This article, Peak Democracy Company, a fatal virus for democracy, goes into the details.
Among voters under forty, only a small fraction has ever even taken a high school level civics course, and for this generation Veblen's conceptualization, or other theories of government and human dynamics are simply courses to get over with as soon as possible to get back to the comfort of a less challenging world. No politician (defined by one who needs to win a majority of votes) would dare to attempt to transcend this by insulting his voters by suggesting they need to revise their way of thinking to judge the merits of policy. Rabid liberal-conservative politics does allow the illusion of such dialogue, but that's all it is. On a national level the enemy will always be the other party, more concentrated if the President is a member. The focus can be on other objects of condemnation, like developers, or "takers" or any out-group susceptible of being despised. All it takes is a critical mass of like minded people to agree on whom to vilify.
It looks like the city will purchase Pacific View, which comes complete with a concept of an arts center even if the restrictions of the location will prohibit an actual one. It will provide a group identification so rewarding that no argument against it shall be allowed to be promulgated to those taxpayers who will be footing the bill. We will have an election in a few months that will include a choice for Mayor, who will be seen by the voters as the most powerful person in city government; and they will feel good that it is the voter who gets to decide rather than other "politicians." The refugee children who passed so close to us will probably be sent back home, many to die or to be forced into tragic lives.
If you have finished this article, you should know you are among the very few who have. It was long, convoluted and took a bit of concentration. Since you've gone this far, why not leave your comment so we and the other few can start a conversation.
-----------
Addenda
From this interview with a conceptual artist in the New York Times
Art is not only physical pollution, it’s intellectual pollution. Spiritual pollution. I belong to the down-the-drain generation. We were promised salvation by art. I was a passionate believer, until I realized it was one of those allegiances, like spiritualism or theosophy. All of this kind of semi-religious teaching, like Mary Baker Eddy or Madame Blavatsky.
---------------------------------
This essay could be seen as being about a controversial issue called "Pacific View" in the small wealthy southern California city of Encinitas where I happen to live. This is the name of the 1950s era rusting elementary school on a three acre plot near the sea shore, that after a ten year battle over arcane laws on the rights of a city to purchase unused schools property, is now under contract to be purchased at the current market value of ten million dollars.
This article is really a vehicle to look at meta-issues, those going beyond specific examples to show larger issues, such as how "Pacific View" ultimately was reduced to the "sound bites/ buzz words" that have come to define all political speech. Expanding on this, I will explore how several local policies have become impossible to address by the political (electoral system.) Among these are one about our "Mayor," who under a new law will have less actual authority than the other members of the city council, yet this reality is impossible to convey to an electorate who filters out all but their visceral understanding of simplistic concepts, IE: Mayor is the chief, Politicians are bad, Control by the voters is good. These set of simplistic truisms prevailed in this initiative in another California city over a reasoned argument among 80% of the voters.
Understanding the dynamics of the new elected mayor law requires the voter first suspending the investment he has in such "buzz word/sound bites" in organizing his world, to explore the actual law being proposed along with the interpersonal dynamics within the city council, something that deprives the average voter of a personal cognitive structure that leaves him vulnerable.
"Majority rules" is the simplest explanation of democracy, which because it is our system we rarely subject to incisive critical analysis. I couldn't ignore this since my participation in a new city commission that was given oversight over major life and death issues placed me in a position where I had to at least try to address these functions of government. This lead to my considering running for this odd position of mayor as a sounding board for discussions such as this essay; but I eventually realized that electoral politics at every level in this country has become a highly regimented activity often controlled by handlers who are masters of these operating rules. The major challenge is following standards that resonate with the increasing "sound bite/buzzword" voters, so it's not what you say that gets you elected, but what you don't get caught saying that will lose the election. The covert recording of Mitt Romney's "47% are takers" presentation illustrates this, as he suspended the above rules and committed the ultimate mistake, being candid about his views." Having a political system that requires its elected officials to obfuscate and dissemble creates a whole host of problems, that for now I'll just take as a given without further exploration.
Purchase of Pacific View was achieved by a single vote majority of the city council after an email-based campaign that mobilized about two percent of the voters of the city. The melodrama created by the sponsor was that of "saving this land from developers" which was energized, given more legitimacy, by it's ultimate use being to enhance "the Arts." This concept was accepted as an all encompassing "good" to such a degree that details of the center became superfluous, implying that any activity under this rubric was worth taxpayer support.
The historic juxtaposition of hundreds of children only miles away being turned away from an immigration center, barred from escaping a high risk of death, did not cause the city authorities to consider how this land could be used to provide sanctuary for these desperate children. "The Arts" had become something so internalized as to be exalted, an identifier of cultural sensitivity that transcended providing succor to these unwashed masses.
My two extensive presentation to the city council first on the impossibility of building a performance space on this land, and the other of the liabilities of city ownership, were mentioned, although mis-characterized by the "Save Pacific Beach" sponsor. The actual two videos, in one case was never was sent to his mailing list and the other it was to a link that was inactive. All of the arguments made during public sessions, other than mine, were against the purchase because the cost wast too high, with no others made against the principle of municipal ownership of this property. My attempt to use the deeply flawed "communications/ propaganda" product Open City Hall to get wider feedback was squelched by the dominating city manager, even when the request came from the "mayor."
Political life in this city, more importantly, in this country, has been reduced to this. The term political correctness is a part of this dynamic, but that phrase has taken on a triviality that negates the damage that is done whenever the unfettered addressing of difficult issues is stigmatized. To understand the effect of our restriction of acceptable language, it's useful to look at the other side, how not only is language stripped of precision by condemning, often to the point of criminalization, language relating to harsh realities of existence, there is a promotion of what is defined as "a positive outlook" such as promotion of the "the arts." Mandated happy-talk is probably a more pernicious type of social control than censorship.
What is not discussed is "the arts" has an element that can be understood as a vehicle of conspicuous consumption Thorstein Veblen's sociological concept that certainly applies to those whose accumulation of billions of dollars worth of paintings enhance their status among the world's elite. To some degree I would suggest that part of the enthusiasm of those who were so passionate about the arts can be explained by this dynamic. While they will never own a Manet, they can be part of the group that admire those that do.
This is strong enough, and so unconscious, that those who never entertained any doubts about the city prioritizing this Pacific View purchase over helping desperate refugees, never thought about how these funds could have been used to upgrade dangerous city intersections. This enthusiasm for this purchase of an arts center allows them to feel a part of the culture that values, that validates a system where the very wealthiest purchase the rarest, the finest, the most valued of objet d'art. This grassroots support was so strong that those who opposed it were accused by the then mayor of attempting to sabotage this movement, it being so sublime that those who opposed it deserved to be treated as an alien force.
Another major issue that was addressed during my period of activity in city affairs was the adoption and implementation of a product sold by Peak Democracy company. I fought it with every resource at my command, that once again was thwarted by a single vote on the city council. This article, Peak Democracy Company, a fatal virus for democracy, goes into the details.
Among voters under forty, only a small fraction has ever even taken a high school level civics course, and for this generation Veblen's conceptualization, or other theories of government and human dynamics are simply courses to get over with as soon as possible to get back to the comfort of a less challenging world. No politician (defined by one who needs to win a majority of votes) would dare to attempt to transcend this by insulting his voters by suggesting they need to revise their way of thinking to judge the merits of policy. Rabid liberal-conservative politics does allow the illusion of such dialogue, but that's all it is. On a national level the enemy will always be the other party, more concentrated if the President is a member. The focus can be on other objects of condemnation, like developers, or "takers" or any out-group susceptible of being despised. All it takes is a critical mass of like minded people to agree on whom to vilify.
It looks like the city will purchase Pacific View, which comes complete with a concept of an arts center even if the restrictions of the location will prohibit an actual one. It will provide a group identification so rewarding that no argument against it shall be allowed to be promulgated to those taxpayers who will be footing the bill. We will have an election in a few months that will include a choice for Mayor, who will be seen by the voters as the most powerful person in city government; and they will feel good that it is the voter who gets to decide rather than other "politicians." The refugee children who passed so close to us will probably be sent back home, many to die or to be forced into tragic lives.
If you have finished this article, you should know you are among the very few who have. It was long, convoluted and took a bit of concentration. Since you've gone this far, why not leave your comment so we and the other few can start a conversation.
-----------
Addenda
From this interview with a conceptual artist in the New York Times
Art is not only physical pollution, it’s intellectual pollution. Spiritual pollution. I belong to the down-the-drain generation. We were promised salvation by art. I was a passionate believer, until I realized it was one of those allegiances, like spiritualism or theosophy. All of this kind of semi-religious teaching, like Mary Baker Eddy or Madame Blavatsky.
---------------------------------
Refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegience
Constitutionality of Encinitas CA Agenda Item
September 7, 2014
"The Law" has a characteristic of being a gift from a higher power, as perhaps it must to control that part of humanity rooted in our primate brutal heritage. This perception extends from the ten commandments given by God, Sharia Law, also from God-called-Allah as conveyed by his Prophet; to the fundamental law of this country, created by those now revered founders who created a Constitution that allowed a compact of independent states to form a nation.. It is this constitution that both empowers, but also places limits on a government by the people. The compact was meant, like the ten commandments, to be eternal -- a bit less so since a super-majority can decide to change it.
Therefore this Constitution, as defined by the Judiciary system, can give an individual on the lowest ladder of our society the ability to negate the authority of the most powerful governmental and police agencies when "constitutional law is on his side." It also allows a single citizen to attempt, ideally by appealing to the law based body, but ultimately by the judiciary of the country to negate activity that is unconstitutional. A Constitutional principle can easily become lost among the deluge of mass media and partisan politics, becoming all but forgotten by lawmakers and citizens, yet such principles and the court decisions that define them have no expiration date, and are good until overruled.
This has happened with the Pledge of Allegiance, as the insertion of the words, "under God" in 1954 has changed the focus of the claims to unconstitutionality from one part of the first amendment, prohibition of abridging the freedom of speech, to another, prohibition of any law respecting an establishment of religion. The prior focus, however, still stands.
The Supreme Court Decision known as the Barnette case, was decided in 1943 during a time that has similarities to what is happening at this moment, when America was at war with a power very much like that of ISIL or the Islamic Caliphate. Both this current growing caliphate of the Islamic world and the Nazi movement shared a genocidal hatred of those were not of their religio-racial ideology. While this could have resulted in a resurgence of patriotism in America, one particular Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson, wrote the majority decision that conveyed why American patriotism is, and must, be different than those of our enemies. This decision which defines the unique quality of American patriotism is found in his decision ruling that the very idea of an official Pledge of Allegiance is an ultimate affront to our constitution. This is something that I am convinced applies more urgently today, and certainly is worth any personal inconvenience to make this point at a public venue.
Robert Jackson's brilliant final paragraphs, parenthetically by a Justice none other than whom Antonin Scalia stated here is his most admired, deserves quoting at this time and for posterity:
Last week in the small Florida city of Winter Garden, a man, Joseph Richardson, who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance was ejected by the local police, as described and shown on video here, most likely under authority such as that of ordinances of the city of Encinitas that is shown in the addenda below. His remaining seated was an expression of his rejection of reciting of the The Pledge of Allegiance.
Under Encinitas local ordinance such expression of rejection of this pledge would allow a mayor to continue the chain of actions that ended with the exiting of the Florida dissenter, leading to arrest and criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor. This threat based on this city's law, even in the absence of implementation, constitutes compelling of speech, legally any expressive action including silence, that the Barnette decision explicitly invalidates as being unconstitutional.
It is at this time, when the systematic mass slaughter of innocents in Iraq and Syria has the potential of involving the United State of America in a major war, that the principles articulated in this 1943 decision, must be given new life. The difference between American patriotism and that of the two genocidal regimes, one burgeoning today, the other defeated seven decades ago, must be brought back to our nation's consciousness.
The words of Justice Robert Jackson, supported by five of his fellow Justices, were never more important than now. It is an obligation for those so convinced to seek out examples of their abrogation, even when only in principle, and confront them for the world to see how central this is to this country. If the United States of America is exceptional, it is not because of our wealth or prowess, and certainly not for the effectiveness of our political system; but rather for this rare core principle of individual freedom that fosters a functional government based on a unique patriotism, that because of its fragility must still be protected in this day as it was in his.
The single dissenting opinion of Barnette, longer than the decision and concurrences, is by another of the great justices, Felix Frankfurter. His dissent is often a footnote attributed to his opening words reflecting being a Jew when America was fighting a war against an enemy specifically of his co-religionists. "One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Were my purely personal attitude relevant, I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the general libertarian views in the Court's opinion, representing, as they do, the thought and action of a lifetime"
It is worth exploring how this dissent cogently expresses the ethos of Judicial restraint now most espoused by Justice Antonin Scalia, ironically in opposing the decision written by the Justice most respected by this current "conservative." Frankfurter's dissent reflects the conflict between expanded interpretation of constitutional principles in contrast to his preferred deference to legislatures,, the more direct representation of the popular majority. The following are quotes from this dissent:
The following quote of Frankfurter is directly on point, and raises the possibility that in the instant challenge I am making, even he may reconsider his opposition to the majority decision of Barnette:
We have in the instant case in Florida the action an official threatening arrest of a citizen who was exercising the very freedom of the symbolic speech of remaining seated described above. Based on the ordinance of the city of Encinitas, where the Pledge is an official agenda item, such expression of rejection could be construed as being out of order, and provide a mayor the authority to initiate a chain of demands resulting in arrest. It is for this reason, that is responsive to Frankfurter's dissent, that I make this current challenge.
The following annotated segment version is also from Frankfurters dissent, the last few sentences are unchanged and the first part has references to specific cases removed. It is from this paragraph close to the end that begins "That is the safe two-fold rule; nor is......" I feature it because it conveys the intellectual zeitgeist of his era, when the deluge of messages, sensations, emotional laden simplistic sound bites of our internet age was a minute fraction of what we all now experience.
The most profound point that I personally can offer, is that what Justice Frankfurter describes in italics is a relic of his era, and no longer exists outside of a few seminars in legal history at the most select law schools. Gone are discussions in the public arena -- "rousing into activity, the enlargement of ideas, and growth of political experience." These intellectual activities have been debased into focus group defined de-intellectualized sound bites that will determine our choice of representatives in the halls of political power.
Jackson's decision was predicated on a realistic, if pessimistic, view of reality. The previous Gobitas decision only two years earlier that required Jehovah's witnesses to recite the pledge, unleashed violence described in this obituary just this week of the defendant, as:
Frankfurter's promise of prompting of independent thoughtful analysis (as idealized in italics above,) in compelled recitation of the Pledge seems out of touch, to say the least. Robert Jackson, who ironically was the least formally educated of any Supreme Court Justice in our history, understood the reality rather than the imagined idealized public, now ever so much further from this ideal-- of Frankfurter, who lived his life at the academic heights.
Jackson knew, from his farmer parents and his unschooled friends, how fragile was independent thought, how inaccessible it was to those without access to the seminars of Harvard. He knew how easily squashed were idea that seemed to be opposed to a patriotic jingoism that could be more oppressive than any brown shirted military force. He also understood how such simple decent people could be led astray, as the world was about to face the horrible consequences of Frankfurter's misplaced optimism.
Ironically only two years after his Barnette decision Robert Jackson was to prosecute the leaders of Nazi Germany over the bar of Nuremberg. Each of those Nazi leaders imposed litmus tests on all of their people with dissent having dire consequences. The result was a universality of common thought, easily directed towards a frenzied thirst for indulging in "the patriotic gore" that must be isolated from the contamination of independent thought.
Frankfurters dissent, and its assumptions, is as important as Jackson's decision in understanding our country, human nature, and the challenges of the rule law over the ages. My wish is that my meager efforts can help to advance the ideals of both men, and that we transcend the debasement of political discourse of our day in addressing this issue of official recitation of the pledge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addenda:
Municipal Code City of Encinitas
2.20.060 Orderly Conduct
A: Any person who fails to comply with a direction given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order at a City Council Meeting shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
B: All persons shall comply with the meeting procedures announced by resolution of the City Council and no person shall interfere with or interrupt a City Council Meeting.
C: The presiding officer may designate a member of the County Sheriff's Department as Sergeant at Arms who shall carry out the directions of the presiding officer.
----------
Report and Video of individual who was ejected from an official local government meeting in Wiinter Garden FL for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
----------
A week later the city of Winter Garden revised their regulations on prayer, which will be a moment of silence, and The Pledge of Allegiance, described in this article. It is now clearly optional by ordinance, which as of this writing is not the case in the city of Encinitas.
----------
As this story was breaking in Florida, and this article being written, the women who fomented the precursor to the 1943 Barnette case, the Jehovah's Witness child with the last name of her case, "Gobitas" who was in 1941 was ordered to say the pledge or be expelled, passed away. Her obituary here describes the violence against those who continued to refuse to say the pledge.
----------
A personal description of the outcome of the joint meeting of the Encinitas City Council and the Traffic and Public Safety Commission, with video, described above is available in this essay
----------
Background material
This insightful 1994 law review article looks at how reputations of Supreme Court justices are formed. Robert Jackson's serving as U.S. Prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials for a year was seen as detracting his legal reputation, while Felix Frankfurter being a Harvard Law professor and member of FDR's administration enhanced his aura.
September 7, 2014
"The Law" has a characteristic of being a gift from a higher power, as perhaps it must to control that part of humanity rooted in our primate brutal heritage. This perception extends from the ten commandments given by God, Sharia Law, also from God-called-Allah as conveyed by his Prophet; to the fundamental law of this country, created by those now revered founders who created a Constitution that allowed a compact of independent states to form a nation.. It is this constitution that both empowers, but also places limits on a government by the people. The compact was meant, like the ten commandments, to be eternal -- a bit less so since a super-majority can decide to change it.
Therefore this Constitution, as defined by the Judiciary system, can give an individual on the lowest ladder of our society the ability to negate the authority of the most powerful governmental and police agencies when "constitutional law is on his side." It also allows a single citizen to attempt, ideally by appealing to the law based body, but ultimately by the judiciary of the country to negate activity that is unconstitutional. A Constitutional principle can easily become lost among the deluge of mass media and partisan politics, becoming all but forgotten by lawmakers and citizens, yet such principles and the court decisions that define them have no expiration date, and are good until overruled.
This has happened with the Pledge of Allegiance, as the insertion of the words, "under God" in 1954 has changed the focus of the claims to unconstitutionality from one part of the first amendment, prohibition of abridging the freedom of speech, to another, prohibition of any law respecting an establishment of religion. The prior focus, however, still stands.
The Supreme Court Decision known as the Barnette case, was decided in 1943 during a time that has similarities to what is happening at this moment, when America was at war with a power very much like that of ISIL or the Islamic Caliphate. Both this current growing caliphate of the Islamic world and the Nazi movement shared a genocidal hatred of those were not of their religio-racial ideology. While this could have resulted in a resurgence of patriotism in America, one particular Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson, wrote the majority decision that conveyed why American patriotism is, and must, be different than those of our enemies. This decision which defines the unique quality of American patriotism is found in his decision ruling that the very idea of an official Pledge of Allegiance is an ultimate affront to our constitution. This is something that I am convinced applies more urgently today, and certainly is worth any personal inconvenience to make this point at a public venue.
Robert Jackson's brilliant final paragraphs, parenthetically by a Justice none other than whom Antonin Scalia stated here is his most admired, deserves quoting at this time and for posterity:
The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure, but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us
Last week in the small Florida city of Winter Garden, a man, Joseph Richardson, who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance was ejected by the local police, as described and shown on video here, most likely under authority such as that of ordinances of the city of Encinitas that is shown in the addenda below. His remaining seated was an expression of his rejection of reciting of the The Pledge of Allegiance.
Under Encinitas local ordinance such expression of rejection of this pledge would allow a mayor to continue the chain of actions that ended with the exiting of the Florida dissenter, leading to arrest and criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor. This threat based on this city's law, even in the absence of implementation, constitutes compelling of speech, legally any expressive action including silence, that the Barnette decision explicitly invalidates as being unconstitutional.
It is at this time, when the systematic mass slaughter of innocents in Iraq and Syria has the potential of involving the United State of America in a major war, that the principles articulated in this 1943 decision, must be given new life. The difference between American patriotism and that of the two genocidal regimes, one burgeoning today, the other defeated seven decades ago, must be brought back to our nation's consciousness.
The words of Justice Robert Jackson, supported by five of his fellow Justices, were never more important than now. It is an obligation for those so convinced to seek out examples of their abrogation, even when only in principle, and confront them for the world to see how central this is to this country. If the United States of America is exceptional, it is not because of our wealth or prowess, and certainly not for the effectiveness of our political system; but rather for this rare core principle of individual freedom that fosters a functional government based on a unique patriotism, that because of its fragility must still be protected in this day as it was in his.
The single dissenting opinion of Barnette, longer than the decision and concurrences, is by another of the great justices, Felix Frankfurter. His dissent is often a footnote attributed to his opening words reflecting being a Jew when America was fighting a war against an enemy specifically of his co-religionists. "One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Were my purely personal attitude relevant, I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the general libertarian views in the Court's opinion, representing, as they do, the thought and action of a lifetime"
It is worth exploring how this dissent cogently expresses the ethos of Judicial restraint now most espoused by Justice Antonin Scalia, ironically in opposing the decision written by the Justice most respected by this current "conservative." Frankfurter's dissent reflects the conflict between expanded interpretation of constitutional principles in contrast to his preferred deference to legislatures,, the more direct representation of the popular majority. The following are quotes from this dissent:
And surely only flippancy could be responsible for the suggestion that constitutional validity of a requirement to salute our flag implies equal validity of a requirement to salute a dictator. The significance of a symbol lies in what it represents. To reject the swastika does not imply rejection of the Cross. And so it bears repetition to say that it mocks reason and denies our whole history to find in the allowance of a requirement to salute our flag on fitting occasions the seeds of sanction for obeisance to a leader. To deny the power to employ educational symbols is to say that the state's educational system may not stimulate the imagination because this may lead to unwise stimulation.
The following quote of Frankfurter is directly on point, and raises the possibility that in the instant challenge I am making, even he may reconsider his opposition to the majority decision of Barnette:
...... It is not even remotely suggested that the requirement for saluting the flag involves the slightest restriction against the fullest opportunity on the part both of the children and of their parents to disavow, as publicly as they choose to do so, the meaning that others attach to the gesture of salute. All channels of affirmative free expression are open to both children and parents. Had we before us any act of the state putting the slightest curbs upon such free expression, I should not lag behind any member of this Court in striking down such an invasion of the right to freedom of thought and freedom of speech protected by the Constitution.-----------
We have in the instant case in Florida the action an official threatening arrest of a citizen who was exercising the very freedom of the symbolic speech of remaining seated described above. Based on the ordinance of the city of Encinitas, where the Pledge is an official agenda item, such expression of rejection could be construed as being out of order, and provide a mayor the authority to initiate a chain of demands resulting in arrest. It is for this reason, that is responsive to Frankfurter's dissent, that I make this current challenge.
The following annotated segment version is also from Frankfurters dissent, the last few sentences are unchanged and the first part has references to specific cases removed. It is from this paragraph close to the end that begins "That is the safe two-fold rule; nor is......" I feature it because it conveys the intellectual zeitgeist of his era, when the deluge of messages, sensations, emotional laden simplistic sound bites of our internet age was a minute fraction of what we all now experience.
..... the correction of legislative "mistakes" (IE voiding W.V law requiring children to recite the pledge, or overruling Obamacare) comes from the outside, and the people thus lose the political experience, and the moral education and stimulus that come from fighting the question out in the ordinary way, and correcting their own errors. If the decisions ( lists several cases where the court did not overrule arguably harmful legislation ), had been different, and the legislation there in question, thought by many to be unconstitutional and by many more to be ill-advised, had been set aside, we should have been saved some trouble and some harm.
But I venture to think that the good which came to the country and its people from the vigorous thinking that had to be done in the political debates that followed, from the infiltration through every part of the population of sound ideas and sentiments, from the rousing into activity of opposite elements, the enlargement of ideas, the strengthening of moral fibre, and the growth of political experience that came out of it all -- that all this (productive public discourse) far more than outweighed any evil which ever flowed from the refusal of the court to interfere with the work of the legislature.
The most profound point that I personally can offer, is that what Justice Frankfurter describes in italics is a relic of his era, and no longer exists outside of a few seminars in legal history at the most select law schools. Gone are discussions in the public arena -- "rousing into activity, the enlargement of ideas, and growth of political experience." These intellectual activities have been debased into focus group defined de-intellectualized sound bites that will determine our choice of representatives in the halls of political power.
Jackson's decision was predicated on a realistic, if pessimistic, view of reality. The previous Gobitas decision only two years earlier that required Jehovah's witnesses to recite the pledge, unleashed violence described in this obituary just this week of the defendant, as:
The ruling sparked attacks on 1,488 Witnesses in 44 states, the American Civil Liberties Union reported. In West Virginia, Witnesses were forced to swallow large amounts of castor oil. In Wyoming, they were tarred and feathered; in Nebraska, they were castrated. In Maine, a mob of 2,500 burned down a local Witness place of worship, known as a Kingdom Hall.
Frankfurter's promise of prompting of independent thoughtful analysis (as idealized in italics above,) in compelled recitation of the Pledge seems out of touch, to say the least. Robert Jackson, who ironically was the least formally educated of any Supreme Court Justice in our history, understood the reality rather than the imagined idealized public, now ever so much further from this ideal-- of Frankfurter, who lived his life at the academic heights.
Jackson knew, from his farmer parents and his unschooled friends, how fragile was independent thought, how inaccessible it was to those without access to the seminars of Harvard. He knew how easily squashed were idea that seemed to be opposed to a patriotic jingoism that could be more oppressive than any brown shirted military force. He also understood how such simple decent people could be led astray, as the world was about to face the horrible consequences of Frankfurter's misplaced optimism.
Ironically only two years after his Barnette decision Robert Jackson was to prosecute the leaders of Nazi Germany over the bar of Nuremberg. Each of those Nazi leaders imposed litmus tests on all of their people with dissent having dire consequences. The result was a universality of common thought, easily directed towards a frenzied thirst for indulging in "the patriotic gore" that must be isolated from the contamination of independent thought.
Frankfurters dissent, and its assumptions, is as important as Jackson's decision in understanding our country, human nature, and the challenges of the rule law over the ages. My wish is that my meager efforts can help to advance the ideals of both men, and that we transcend the debasement of political discourse of our day in addressing this issue of official recitation of the pledge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addenda:
Municipal Code City of Encinitas
2.20.060 Orderly Conduct
A: Any person who fails to comply with a direction given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order at a City Council Meeting shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
B: All persons shall comply with the meeting procedures announced by resolution of the City Council and no person shall interfere with or interrupt a City Council Meeting.
C: The presiding officer may designate a member of the County Sheriff's Department as Sergeant at Arms who shall carry out the directions of the presiding officer.
----------
Report and Video of individual who was ejected from an official local government meeting in Wiinter Garden FL for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
----------
A week later the city of Winter Garden revised their regulations on prayer, which will be a moment of silence, and The Pledge of Allegiance, described in this article. It is now clearly optional by ordinance, which as of this writing is not the case in the city of Encinitas.
----------
As this story was breaking in Florida, and this article being written, the women who fomented the precursor to the 1943 Barnette case, the Jehovah's Witness child with the last name of her case, "Gobitas" who was in 1941 was ordered to say the pledge or be expelled, passed away. Her obituary here describes the violence against those who continued to refuse to say the pledge.
----------
A personal description of the outcome of the joint meeting of the Encinitas City Council and the Traffic and Public Safety Commission, with video, described above is available in this essay
----------
Background material
This insightful 1994 law review article looks at how reputations of Supreme Court justices are formed. Robert Jackson's serving as U.S. Prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials for a year was seen as detracting his legal reputation, while Felix Frankfurter being a Harvard Law professor and member of FDR's administration enhanced his aura.
Traffic and Public Safety Commission joint meeting agenda item
Elected officials, Staff and members of the Traffic and Public Safety Commission
Ballour Senior Center, 9/8/2014 6PM
Here
is my proposed agenda, (along with my own views) that I believe would
provide a functional top down structure with this being the threshold
item:
Discuss and select a definition of the role of T&PSC - this would ultimately be a decision of the City Council Members
This
is a binary decision, meaning considering whether it will continue as
an advisory committee, which gets few applicants; or it will become
something much more. If it remains as is, very little has to be changed
in the ordinance and agenda items such as just submitted by Mr. Blough
and Chair Kohl would be appropriate.
There are only a few residents who desire to be on such a commission
with existing authority that will be sufficient to continue to fill
vacancies.
If
it is to be more, its output would have to be presumptive rather than
advisory, which is how our Planning Commission now operates. This would
then require a majority of the council to negate rather than to affirm
the work of this commission. This would make it similar to a legislative
sub-committees which either have oversight responsibilities of agencies
or formulate new laws. If this is the choice, the city will have
created a completely different entity from the previous commission
which will require more resources, along with time expenditure with
personal concomitant satisfactions to Commissioners. The resources
would require access to legal expertise, along with the sessions being
videoed, and even possibly the authority of the chairperson to take
sworn testimony of witnesses. The chair of this Commission would then
be one having personal authority, something like the city's current
planning commission, and as such he/she should be nominated by the Mayor
and confirmed by the city council. Appropriateness of financial
remuneration for chair and members is an open question.
As one of two individuals who joined after the Traffic Commission was expanded I've proposed several projects that I will link below as examples of the type of projects I envision can be addressed by a presumptive Traffic and Public Safety Commission.
-----------
This was a proposal for the last meeting that was suspended pending this joint meeting, it combines traffic and public safety issues.
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/0/doc/718354/Page1.aspx
------------
This article for the July Meeting gave the rationale and legality of local ordinances being formulated even when being addressed by laws at higher levels.
http://focusonencinitas.blogspot.com/2014/06/reach-being-larger-than-grasp-when-and.html
------------
This essay, after discussing my failed attempt to define a broader interpretation of this Commission includes the stucture of a similar commission of Castle Rock CO, where I had a long discussion with an official on how they dealt with combining the Fire and EMS services.
http://focusonencinitas.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-third-of-year-evaluation-of-public.html
------------
Revised current ordinance:
2.40.040 Duties of the Traffic and Public Safety Commission.
A. It is the duty of this commission to serve as a liaison between the public and the City Council, and to conduct analyses and provide recommendations to the Council on matters related to the circulation of motorized vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, and on matters related to public safety.
The scope of the commission’s role with respect to public safety includes but is not limited to traffic safety, emergency response for fire, medical and other crises, as well as the City’s efforts to control and reduce criminal activities of all types. The commission may conduct informational and educational meetings, prepare reports and analyses, and work with fire, marine safety,ambulance, and sheriff personnel.
Folowup of Oral statement at city coucil 8/27/14
August 27, 2014
My involvement in city affairs, beginning with my joining the Traffic commission only to find out it had been expanded in number and in concept, to cover emergencies and police use of forcce is something for my own reasons I took very seriously. This involved me in the city council, as my second meeting of the Commission was a dramatic showdown contesting the authority of the City Manager over stalling the evaluation of restructuring our Fire Fighting- EMS functions, a life and death issue that had been avoided for fifteen years- and still appears to be in this state of limbo.
Here's the background of this video (advance to 3:20) of a presentation at our city council
When someone like myself who values his understanding of details and is careful to be precise when discussing issues, is accused of saying something false in a public setting such as city hall, I'm deeply offended, and can't help getting angry at those who perpetrated this. When the wagons that have circled in defending the distortion of the contracts with the Pacific View legal bond counsel include all of city hall, and the law firm itself, discretion would dictate that I simply back away.
Nevertheless, I'll provide this paper "The Meaning of Contingent in a Public Contract" that presents my events including the links to documens,and city council dialogue that include the actual contract whose nature is being contested, Each person should check the references provided, and should read it to evaluate what it means, as the larger issue at stake here is that contracts should be understandable by those literate citizens who are bound by them.
While the above article relates to a rather clear case of a false description of a city contract, the following article is on Peak Democracy, that's also known as "Open Town Hall" and "E-Town Hall. The title displays my own personal point of view that I'm sharing with this audience: Peak Democracy Company, a virus for democracy. Whatever happens about my continued involvement with city government, I will continue to push to expose the danger of this company's products no matter what my official involvement in the city's government.
My involvement in city affairs, beginning with my joining the Traffic commission only to find out it had been expanded in number and in concept, to cover emergencies and police use of forcce is something for my own reasons I took very seriously. This involved me in the city council, as my second meeting of the Commission was a dramatic showdown contesting the authority of the City Manager over stalling the evaluation of restructuring our Fire Fighting- EMS functions, a life and death issue that had been avoided for fifteen years- and still appears to be in this state of limbo.
Here's the background of this video (advance to 3:20) of a presentation at our city council
When someone like myself who values his understanding of details and is careful to be precise when discussing issues, is accused of saying something false in a public setting such as city hall, I'm deeply offended, and can't help getting angry at those who perpetrated this. When the wagons that have circled in defending the distortion of the contracts with the Pacific View legal bond counsel include all of city hall, and the law firm itself, discretion would dictate that I simply back away.
Nevertheless, I'll provide this paper "The Meaning of Contingent in a Public Contract" that presents my events including the links to documens,and city council dialogue that include the actual contract whose nature is being contested, Each person should check the references provided, and should read it to evaluate what it means, as the larger issue at stake here is that contracts should be understandable by those literate citizens who are bound by them.
While the above article relates to a rather clear case of a false description of a city contract, the following article is on Peak Democracy, that's also known as "Open Town Hall" and "E-Town Hall. The title displays my own personal point of view that I'm sharing with this audience: Peak Democracy Company, a virus for democracy. Whatever happens about my continued involvement with city government, I will continue to push to expose the danger of this company's products no matter what my official involvement in the city's government.
References for Vehicular noise ordinance for Encinitas
Work sheet for consideration of vehicular noise ordinance for Encinitas
Article and video on 2015 Jaguar Sports that comes equipped with a special "sport sound" noise enhancer that was measured at close to 100db. With this feature, disturbing damaging, and physically harmful noise will become a feature for the conspicuous consumption set.
Link to Journal article: Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554566_3
"Uninterrupted sleep is known to be a prerequisite for good physiologic and mental functioning in healthy individuals.[28] Environmental noise is one of the major causes of disturbed sleep.[1,10] When sleep disruption becomes chronic, the results are mood changes, decrements in performance, and other long-term effects on health and well-being.[3] Much recent research has focused on noise from aircraft, roadways, and trains. It is known, for example, that continuous noise in excess of 30 dB disturbs sleep. For intermittent noise, the probability of being awakened increases with the number of noise events per night.[1]"
This article is a survey of the myriad harmful effects of interrupted or fractured sleep
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/820529
-----------
Vehicle noise regulation, a detailed introduction from Conn. on legal and physical issues,
California vehicle noise code, 27200 et seq,
Note clause 27202-1 (3) that excludes state preemption that may allow city ordinance to be enforcable.
Loud Pipes' Cost: Harley-Davidson Tries to Quiet Motorcycle Noise
This is a list of noise of various automobile Mufflers listed by Decibels at idle and full throttle of over 110 DB
Extensive public forum on "loud motorcycles, laws against and push back by bikers. "
Article and video on 2015 Jaguar Sports that comes equipped with a special "sport sound" noise enhancer that was measured at close to 100db. With this feature, disturbing damaging, and physically harmful noise will become a feature for the conspicuous consumption set.
Link to Journal article: Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554566_3
"Uninterrupted sleep is known to be a prerequisite for good physiologic and mental functioning in healthy individuals.[28] Environmental noise is one of the major causes of disturbed sleep.[1,10] When sleep disruption becomes chronic, the results are mood changes, decrements in performance, and other long-term effects on health and well-being.[3] Much recent research has focused on noise from aircraft, roadways, and trains. It is known, for example, that continuous noise in excess of 30 dB disturbs sleep. For intermittent noise, the probability of being awakened increases with the number of noise events per night.[1]"
This article is a survey of the myriad harmful effects of interrupted or fractured sleep
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/820529
-----------
Vehicle noise regulation, a detailed introduction from Conn. on legal and physical issues,
California vehicle noise code, 27200 et seq,
Note clause 27202-1 (3) that excludes state preemption that may allow city ordinance to be enforcable.
Loud Pipes' Cost: Harley-Davidson Tries to Quiet Motorcycle Noise
This is a list of noise of various automobile Mufflers listed by Decibels at idle and full throttle of over 110 DB
Extensive public forum on "loud motorcycles, laws against and push back by bikers. "
Integrity or poliitcal expediency- Priciples and Case Study
Those who read this complete story from Leucadia Blog archives of 6/2011 (about half way down to read comments) will be taken back to a proposed California legislation, Chelsea Law, that had all but universal support. It tells of one member of the Encinitas city council, maybe the only person in elected political life, Maggie Houlihan, who had the courage to oppose it.
Another member of that council, Teresa Barth, made a different choice, that must have haunted her, as she felt the need to publicly proclaim her reasons years later that is described below. Lack of political integrity is pernicious, as while avoiding the immediate pain of public condemnation; the individual knows what he or she has done, and that she has become un-moored to her own principle, becoming adrift in the ebb and flow of public sentiment.
Here's the story from my article in the Leucadia blog :
Encinitas Skirmish in The War on Sex Offenders
The other body of writing is from academic sources, the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, psychology and law that underlie the field of criminology. These research based, often cross cultural studies describe the political processes of creating this body of law, along with evaluation of their effectiveness. Such literature, examples of which I have referenced in my personal blog article linked below, are little read by the public, and have almost no effect on policy. I will not be writing here about this this body of research.
Readers of this blog are intensely interested in the small city of Encinitas California, and follow its council members like the general public follows Members of Congress,. So, this blog article will start with one event, a five minute segment of a city council debate over sending a letter of endorsement for Chelsea's Law. It's best to watch the video linked below and we can continue right afterwards. (for those who can't access it, or if you want the short synopsis in my recent article in Coast News along with additional references, it's here on my own blog AlRodbell.blogspot.com.) I'll continue with this excerpt from that article. In a break from a major focus of Lucadia Blog, this is not written to criticize or praise any of the members of the Council, but to illustrate a process of creating legislation in this area which transcends local politics.
----------
From The Coast News:
The political dynamics were clearly illustrated on May 26, 2010 when the City of Encinitas Council was asked to vote on endorsing a letter supporting the law. (video gone but description below is burned into my memory)
The law provides for up to life imprisonment for aggravated first offenses, at a cost estimated to reach over a hundred million dollars a year. As with the truism that prevention is more effective than incarceration, the belief that early inappropriate sexual activity is predictive of later violent crimes is equally uncertain. But by the time the issue came to the Encinitas Council this law was on steamroller, and sending the letter of support to the legislature seemed assured.
One member of the council, Maggie Houlihan, suggested that while she, like everyone else, abhors sexual violence this law should be considered in the context of other social needs. She suggested a modification of the letter of endorsement that would have noted the need for this larger perspective.
Councilman Jerome Stocks dismissed this vehemently, saying, "I don't want to hear about potential problems, let the legislature find the money." Maggie wasn't intimidated. After a sharp interaction, acknowledging that her vote against unconditional support of the bill would draw constituent's anger, she concluded with, "This is a much larger problem of our penal system."
The vote to send the letter was only opposed by Maggie, with the other three members who were clearly ambivalent not willing to go on record against it. Several months later at an election forum at Cardiff, I brought this up in front of the large audience. Candidate Dan Dalager (under siege for alleged corruption), whom I confronted for passively voting for this resolution, didn't defend his vote, but pointed out that three other members did the same thing.
Then, Teresa Barth, who was also on the ballot for the council, stood up and made a statement that explains much about the political process in our country at all levels. She said, "I didn't want to vote to send that letter. But, if I had voted against it, every candidate's mailer would have blasted me for not supporting Chelsea's Law, that I was soft on child sexual predators."
Maggie Houlihan may well have been the only elected official in California to publicly question Chelsea's Law.
----------------
I ended my Coast News essay with this:
The law was promoted, and accepted as being targeted for "the worst of the worst" the irredeemable sociopaths such as Chelsea King's killer John Gardner. Actually, the first person who was prosecuted under this law was Joseph Cantorna, a fifty five year old brain damaged man whose offense was inappropriately touching two boys whom he believed to be his grandsons. After the expense of pre-trial incarceration and preparing a prosecution under this law, it took the Judge five minutes to throw the case against this obviously incompetent person out of court.
I have written this synopsis of the half hour jail house interview with Cantorna, a man who still wants to play doctor with the little girls and boys. He doesn't want to do any harm, yet has a temper that explodes when he doesn't get his way. We, as a society, unlike others in other times, have decided to accept him, acknowledging his severe mental deficiency that precludes the development of sexual constraints that shape what we describe as acceptable behavior. Yet, when he is caught doing something rather minor, that is for his five year old mental-emotional age; with Chelsea's law, we have chosen not to segregate him from others in a protective place, but rather put him in a prison with hardened predatory felons to live out his life.
While I have a pretty good idea what is wrong with this system, getting it right is more of a challenge. And that's where I'll leave it; hoping to get some insights from others who may read this.
Al Rodbell
Encinitas Resident and frequent contributor to DailyKos.
Public Safety Commission to be defined at Joint meeting of City Council
There will be a joint meeting with this commission and the council held at the Balour Community center, Monday Sept. 8 at 6PM , agenda and details soon to be posted, to work out the question I describe below. So, I only spoke briefly about the broad issue at the August eeting, and now send the below message to the city council. It was a fascinating meeting, as it touched on what should be done when what had been a rural feeder street is built out, and crossing becomes a serious danger. Unfortunately, while I did record the meeting it was not videoed, so the sincere words of dozens of people can not be shared with the public. This is one of the things that should be remediated.
8/10/14
Public Safety usually refers to functions of government that are defined by uniformed services with special police powers. The ordinance that added this to the Traffic commission described them as relating to: "emergency response for fire, medical and other crises, as well as the city's efforts to control and reduce criminal activities of all types"
I've been on the Traffic and Public Safety Commission since it was expanded from being the Traffic Commission early this year, and as such have been the point man my attempt to embrace the new mandate. This has been met with less than enthusiasm by those who were comfortable with the more limited responsibilities of a Traffic Commission.
to:
Encinitas City Council, Commission Members, Active
citizens
This description is of my initiated
item that will be on the agenda for the Traffic and Public Safety Commission
meeting for August 11. (now for joint meeting of Sept. 8) While including specific issues it is intended to be a discussion of the the wording and mandate of the expanded
commission. It would be useful if this meeting was
attended, with participation by, members of the city council, especially Ms.
Shaffer and Mr. Kranz who provided this terminology that is included in the
ordinance. (this attendance would be acceptable, per the booklet 7B-170 PP 13, Guide to
Ralph M. Brown Act)
The
ambiguity is in city code 2.40.040:
That
first paragraph states that "the commission shall study and report to the
Council upon any matter referred to it by the council" yet also in the
next paragraph states the commission shall be a "liaison" between the the public
and the council- meaning an intermediary implying in both
directions. This would indicate that the action of the commission is not
limited to council directed issues. We also include Commissioner Initiated Agenda Items, in the city code.
Unlike
other commissions such as arts, recreation or senior services, the subject
matter inherently addresses the most crucial and controversial of government
activities. This committee is charged with dealing with : "traffic safety,
emergency response for fire, medical and other crises, as well as the city's
efforts to control and reduce criminal activities of all types"
These
are life and death issues that a city certainly should deal with proactively,
and have a civic entity such as this committee that oversees, as well as works
with, the agencies so described. Those in the council who wrote this
mandate may want to ascertain how it is interpreted and whether it meets the
underlying goal. To fully research new laws or enforcement regimens in the
areas described in the ordinance will require more than the casual effort of
other commissions that deal with less vital services. My personal view is that this
function, where the end product will be ordinances and procedures for
the uniformed services, it would require greater resources
and authority.
If
the ordinance is to be more than empty words, this will take a
consequential commitment of time by commissioners, and the authority
and compensation should be commensurate with this effort, somewhat similar to
that of the Planning Commission. Since these resources were not provided to the
current membership, the applicants were few; and may not desire, or be
otherwise appropriate for, achieving the
ordinance's goals.
There
should be a procedure for coordination with the council on major projects, so
that the work product is not evaluated only after the effort is
expended. I would suggest a fast track for a preliminary approval of going
forward to address a subject before details are defined by the commission.
There
has now been some experience with the expanded commission to allow the council
to evaluate whether the current structure is functioning as they anticipate, or
whether clarification or revision is appropriate.
Al
Rodbell
Below are representative issues that could be addressed by a truly empowered citizen public safety commission.
The first if Robert Bonde's (now in his late 80s) proposal to merge the fire and EMS services of our city. It has shuttled between the T&PS commission and the city council earlier this year after fifteen years of his attempting to have this addressed, and now is in some state of political limbo, with his opponents counting on the the human life span to work in their favor for never addressing this issue that could save lives and taxpayer's money.
Below are representative issues that could be addressed by a truly empowered citizen public safety commission.
The first if Robert Bonde's (now in his late 80s) proposal to merge the fire and EMS services of our city. It has shuttled between the T&PS commission and the city council earlier this year after fifteen years of his attempting to have this addressed, and now is in some state of political limbo, with his opponents counting on the the human life span to work in their favor for never addressing this issue that could save lives and taxpayer's money.
This article in today's LA Times, demonstrates how lives can be saved by facilitating CPR using a smartphone app, but that it would take state legislation to provide liability protection, a "good samaritin law" that exists in other states and should be in ours. This also illustrates as city public safety must include promoting action at other levels of government.
Pacific View- resposible evaluation while moving forward on purchase
Pacific View- council meeting 7/ 16 on suitability contingency
This meeting will make the contract of sale of this property binding. I had an exchange of emails with council member Tony Kranz, that I am copying here: (ignore the variation of type face and size)
The conversation was initiated by this email I sent on Monday July 14
Suitability" of the property implies suitable for a given specified use, as every property is inherently suitable for something; so without specificity of use the clause is meaningless.
Al Rodbell
Tony wrote back, offering to provide a copy of the 700+ page document to me, which I responded with my detailed suggestions:
Al
This meeting will make the contract of sale of this property binding. I had an exchange of emails with council member Tony Kranz, that I am copying here: (ignore the variation of type face and size)
The conversation was initiated by this email I sent on Monday July 14
City Officials
As of the time of this email, the 700 plus page document of the above is
not linked to the Agenda. Other such links are active so the defect or
removal I conclude is by the city. I did get to start to study the
report on Friday when it was released and noticed
it did not have an executive summary or a contents page, which makes it
impossible to evaluate even if it were now available.
I request a response to several questions:
While the studies appeared to be for generic improvements, please
indicate specific analyses that were performed for underground parking
of various levels, with geologic findings and cost estimates. Such
parking would be required if any sizable performance
space were to be part of the arts center. Also describe any traffic
and parking studies that were done concomitant to this issue, described
further in next paragraph.
Every property in Southern California has a wide array of limitations of
usage that are defined by history codified into law. Discovery of
religious artifacts of indigenous peoples is one that could preclude a
wide array of improvements The consensus that
enjoyment of the beach is a common right of the people has been
codified by state law that is enforced by the California Coastal
Commission. This is reflected by the principle and requirement that no
facility that substantively detracts from available near
beachfront parking would be permitted.
From my earlier reading, limited by the lack of a contents page or
index, there is no evidence that your due diligence investigation
evaluated the above. Thus ignoring the clause in the sales contract (4.1.b)
that allowed for our abrogation if the land was not "suitable
for our use."
.....but is not limited to, a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Geo-technical
reconnaissance,
Hydrology Study,
and/or other inspections or studies deemed necessary
by
Buyer for determining the condition and suitability of the Property.
Suitability" of the property implies suitable for a given specified use, as every property is inherently suitable for something; so without specificity of use the clause is meaningless.
Unless the following elements that limit or preclude use are included in
the above document, and identified specifically with location, (section
and page number), I will propose the following to the council at the
meeting of 7/16.
A: This due diligence document is not approved.
B: The issues raised above be investigated before July 28th when relevant clause expires per exiting contract of sale
C: If these investigations, along with cost estimates for selected
structures are not completed for a special meeting to be evaluated
before this clause expires, then the city lawyer be instructed to either
receive a 60 day extension of above clause 4.1.b or
abrogate said contract. Al Rodbell
Tony wrote back, offering to provide a copy of the 700+ page document to me, which I responded with my detailed suggestions:
Dear Tony,
I
appreciate your offer, however, my central point is that if there is
the evaluation of the elements that I describe, let's call it legal
limitation rather than geologic due diligence, it is not appropriate
that an involved resident has to search through each of a 700 page
report. There should be a contents, executive summary or index. The
person who wrote this document could give you an answer to my query
immediately, since he knows what's included.
If,
as I believe, the elements that I described were not considered, then
the taxpayers are taking a risk that this property may not be suitable,
even if done in the future, for any contemplated improvements. This is
not an attempt to "sabotage" but to exert pressure on the elected
officials to do what any public or private entity would do in a purchase
such as this.
As
far as your position that there is no need to delay acquisition, an
extension of the single clause would not have to result in such a delay.
I would prefer that we push the closing back the two months, so if we
do discover something like the underground pool of water that the
speaker before me on the May 28th meeting referred to (seeing it as an
asset!) then we would realize that we could not reasonably have the
multi level underground parking that a performance space would require.
Under such an unexpected discovery I trust even a fair minded enthusiast
would realize that this property's value is sharply lowered.
On
the other hand with some investigation of traffic and parking
constraints we may find out that the concern that I have is over stated.
This could be done by research of Coastal Commission decisions on
other similar proposals. Such research would not be definitive but it
would reduce uncertainty, and we can determine pretty well how much of a
limit to future development this represents. At the very least, the
city Manager should be clearly instructed, not a vague suggestion that
he can sidestep, but instructed to research and report on this within
ten days. This may require advance instructions or a meeting of council
at this time to evaluate such a "legal limitation due diligence
report."
Our
city manager is shameless in pulling the wool over the eyes of elected
officials. He never told you when you had doubts about Peak Democracy
that the years contract could have been canceled at any time at will,
and we could have suspended payment while doing further investigation,
and then afterwards if members wanted to go forward the contract could
have been re- instituted. We were not obligated for a year, which was the
mis-impression he allowed to exist.
Let's
move ahead on this purchase if
this is the decision of the majority of our elected city officials;
but we can do this responsibly, which is the purpose of my
suggestions.
I appreciate your responding, and hope that you follow through.
Regards
Al
Open town hall meeting on Pacific View purchase
July 9, 2014
The city of Encinitas signed a purchase contract after the May 28th council meeting that has a 60 day contingency period for due diligence, which means the systematic evaluation a major purchase. While buying this property has been discussed for years, up until the last few months it was always going to be under a special State law that would have allowed a sharply discounted price for abandoned schools such as this, which would have made it a classic "no brainer."
But since it was determined that this would not apply, the city ended up buying this at market value, calculated on it being used in the most lucrative configuration, a mix of residences and offices that very likely would have included a public amenity component. The purchase price of 10 million dollars is just the beginning of the city's expense, as there will be design costs, infrastructure and building construction and then legal challenges at the Coastal Commission level that may refuse any use that impacts traffic and parking availability for beach use. The operating cost of this purchase, including lost tax revenue for a mixed private and public use, which is precluded by the contract of sale, would be well over a million a year, how much over never having been calculated by the city.
The city council has purchased and just launched an internet utility called "Open Town Hall" that promises to rectify the distortion of public input that drove this expenditure of limited tax generated resources. While these taxes will be paid by every resident of the city, only about 600 people were part of a concerted campaign to purchase this property -- at any cost without any specification of what would be done with it -- under the banner of "Save Pacific View." The company that sold us the "Open Town Hall" utility promoted its allowing those who do not attend council meetings and send emails to council members to have a voice in city affairs. While I have many objections to policies of this company, what it claims to do is important, allowing the city to send out a survey that will reach sizable proportion of Encinitas residents to get their views of this purchase, one that still could be canceled or re-negotiated to allow the city complete discretion of use which they have now relinquished.
The survey should have an introduction that conveys the two sides, one by the organizer of "save pacific" beach Scott Chatworth, and the other that incorporates my opposing viewpoint, expressed in the following essays: This one on the process, and this one presenting the case for the alternate city owned site. Both points of view being fairly presented in the text of the survey will also be a litmus test of the the Open Town Hall product.
The survey questions should include:
Community location (Leucadia, New Encinitas etc)
Activity with "Save Pacific View" (allow all answers)
On mailing list
Sent email to city council of support
Sent email to city council in opposition
Attended city council meeting
5 point scale of approval of purchase based on existing contract (with link to details and council discussion)
5 point scale of approval of whether the existing city owned property at Encinitas Ranch Town Center should be used for an Arts Center, as a substitute for the Pacific View site.
A list of specific uses (performance space, galleries etc) that are supported by those in favor of purchase of property.
Open comment field
The staff person who is the contact with the "Open Town Hall" company has been advised of this suggestion by that company, indicating such a survey is consistent with their goals and functionality.
It's only a matter of whether the city council truly desires such widespread input on major issues.
------------
City Hall refused to run this, so I made up my own survey that you can take at this link
The city of Encinitas signed a purchase contract after the May 28th council meeting that has a 60 day contingency period for due diligence, which means the systematic evaluation a major purchase. While buying this property has been discussed for years, up until the last few months it was always going to be under a special State law that would have allowed a sharply discounted price for abandoned schools such as this, which would have made it a classic "no brainer."
But since it was determined that this would not apply, the city ended up buying this at market value, calculated on it being used in the most lucrative configuration, a mix of residences and offices that very likely would have included a public amenity component. The purchase price of 10 million dollars is just the beginning of the city's expense, as there will be design costs, infrastructure and building construction and then legal challenges at the Coastal Commission level that may refuse any use that impacts traffic and parking availability for beach use. The operating cost of this purchase, including lost tax revenue for a mixed private and public use, which is precluded by the contract of sale, would be well over a million a year, how much over never having been calculated by the city.
The city council has purchased and just launched an internet utility called "Open Town Hall" that promises to rectify the distortion of public input that drove this expenditure of limited tax generated resources. While these taxes will be paid by every resident of the city, only about 600 people were part of a concerted campaign to purchase this property -- at any cost without any specification of what would be done with it -- under the banner of "Save Pacific View." The company that sold us the "Open Town Hall" utility promoted its allowing those who do not attend council meetings and send emails to council members to have a voice in city affairs. While I have many objections to policies of this company, what it claims to do is important, allowing the city to send out a survey that will reach sizable proportion of Encinitas residents to get their views of this purchase, one that still could be canceled or re-negotiated to allow the city complete discretion of use which they have now relinquished.
The survey should have an introduction that conveys the two sides, one by the organizer of "save pacific" beach Scott Chatworth, and the other that incorporates my opposing viewpoint, expressed in the following essays: This one on the process, and this one presenting the case for the alternate city owned site. Both points of view being fairly presented in the text of the survey will also be a litmus test of the the Open Town Hall product.
The survey questions should include:
Community location (Leucadia, New Encinitas etc)
Activity with "Save Pacific View" (allow all answers)
On mailing list
Sent email to city council of support
Sent email to city council in opposition
Attended city council meeting
5 point scale of approval of purchase based on existing contract (with link to details and council discussion)
5 point scale of approval of whether the existing city owned property at Encinitas Ranch Town Center should be used for an Arts Center, as a substitute for the Pacific View site.
A list of specific uses (performance space, galleries etc) that are supported by those in favor of purchase of property.
Open comment field
The staff person who is the contact with the "Open Town Hall" company has been advised of this suggestion by that company, indicating such a survey is consistent with their goals and functionality.
It's only a matter of whether the city council truly desires such widespread input on major issues.
------------
City Hall refused to run this, so I made up my own survey that you can take at this link
Saving Pacific View- A Morality Play
June 17, 2014 - updated July 12
Addendum for those doing the survey: This is to links of Peak Democracy's Open Town Hall critiques. The following is my argument against going forward with the current contract to purchase this property. Contact me at alvrdb.brt, for specific questions and further details
Reason rarely has a chance against group emotion, as it feels good to be part of a movement for something that everyone agrees is to be desired, such as "supporting the arts" or from a different realm, "spreading democracy." The two realms have been conflated just a bit when the creator of the "Save Pacific View" movement posted on one of his emails that there is still a chance of someone "sabotaging" the goal. That was a strong word, drawing from hatred of the "enemy," defined in this case as someone making the case such as I'm doing in this article.
I happen to believe that it's when a movement has gathered group momentum that its exactly the time to interject reason into the mix. Reason implies presenting propositions, not to be embraced, but to be evaluated; first checked for veracity of the facts, and then to be considered fairly looking at all possible outcomes. In other words, exactly like the political culture is in our country--as the kids used to say for emphasis....NOT! We no longer work that way in our democracy, as spelled out in the recent report by the Pew Research Foundation on political polarization in America.
Just as the time before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to spread democracy to the middle east, very few of either party had the courage to challenge the premise, to state that rather than democracy we could unleash chaos once the established order was upended. Oh, this was discussed in think tanks with no media coverage, but few in public life other than old Senator Robert Byrd were willing to stand and publicly state the obvious.
Now in a tiny microcosm of this dynamic, we are about to "Save Pacific View" something I put in quotes as it was part of a brilliant campaign by the organizer Scott Chatfield that began with the name, which implies salvation rather than transformation of the site which would have raised the question of "to what?" When we are asked to save something, or someone, we don't ask what will happen latter; we pull out all stops to keep it from dying, or in this case a fate worse than death which would be turned over to "developers." These are the bad guys, even if like in other cities they create developments that provide public spaces that are more secure and widely used than those of surrounding public parks.
We happen to have such a park that does provide for enjoyment of grassy landscape and even running natural water called, "cottonwood creek" which is maybe a half mile away. And for gazing at the ocean, which will not be possible from Pacific View, it can be at an area overlooking the coast about a five minute stroll away, from which you can even walk right down to the beach. And just as the unspoken dark side of our Iraq invasion, (O.K., "liberation" if you like,) finally has come to pass at this very moment in time, so too city ownership of Pacific View could be a millstone around the neck of a future Encinitas.
This article "Taboo Subject: Homeless in the Park" from the journal of the National Recreation and Park Association dares bring this subject into the light. Although now there is only a small chance that this will occur, it should not completely be ignored: Will this space with a large open parklike area increase the probability of thrusting Encinitas into the most searing issue of our times, the vast difference between those with the least living among those of us lucky enough to reside here? Will there still be funds to build a homeless residence for those who may flock to this city once we are known as "friendly" to the indigent, or will we be be included in the category of "mean cities," those who by various methods, legal or otherwise, keep such people away.
Right now we are not engaging in any dialogue on actual palpable choices when we own this land. We have identified the good guys, "lovers of the arts," and the bad guys, other than myself probably a majority of residents who don't follow local issues at all. Somehow included in the contract that was signed last month we still have about forty days (until July 28) to identify actual, rather than ethereal, uses of this three acre parcel, and first decide whether it's even possible. Any sizable performance space, the most common suggested use, will probably be ruled out based on the authority of the Coastal Commission to reject any structure that will decrease availability of parking for beach goers.
There is a parcel (Link to Video Below) that is available to us at Encinitas Town Center, Leucadia and El Camino Real, that including available public parking has as much useful area as Pacific View. Rather than a cost for the the land of ten million dollars this is owned by the city, and actually could legally realize the ideal of performance spaces along with teaching facilities. This would be both a benefit for this broad area called New Encinitas which would be in closer proximity to more moderate priced housing for undiscovered artistic talent.
Our city has a long list of approved unfunded capital projects, some designed to prevent pedestrian and driver casualties, others with different benefits. Yet, in the course of a few months, this purchase was elevated to the front of the list, with plenty of generated emotion and impassioned emails from perhaps one percent of the citizens of this city.
While at times analysis can lead to paralysis, as stated by one member of the council who will no longer be there when we close on this property next year; usually analysis is valuable. It would have been useful when a handful of people in Washington were fomenting public thirst for a war that now, a decade later, is unleashing the homicidal rage of a billion people in that part of the world. And on an infinitely smaller scale, this deserves the appropriate analysis of real choices and consequences that is still possible in the five weeks left to actually consider all aspects of this purchase.
Video of Performance parcel at Encinitas Town Center
Article on details of pacific view sales contract with link to council discussion
Addendum for those doing the survey: This is to links of Peak Democracy's Open Town Hall critiques. The following is my argument against going forward with the current contract to purchase this property. Contact me at alvrdb.brt, for specific questions and further details
Reason rarely has a chance against group emotion, as it feels good to be part of a movement for something that everyone agrees is to be desired, such as "supporting the arts" or from a different realm, "spreading democracy." The two realms have been conflated just a bit when the creator of the "Save Pacific View" movement posted on one of his emails that there is still a chance of someone "sabotaging" the goal. That was a strong word, drawing from hatred of the "enemy," defined in this case as someone making the case such as I'm doing in this article.
I happen to believe that it's when a movement has gathered group momentum that its exactly the time to interject reason into the mix. Reason implies presenting propositions, not to be embraced, but to be evaluated; first checked for veracity of the facts, and then to be considered fairly looking at all possible outcomes. In other words, exactly like the political culture is in our country--as the kids used to say for emphasis....NOT! We no longer work that way in our democracy, as spelled out in the recent report by the Pew Research Foundation on political polarization in America.
Just as the time before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to spread democracy to the middle east, very few of either party had the courage to challenge the premise, to state that rather than democracy we could unleash chaos once the established order was upended. Oh, this was discussed in think tanks with no media coverage, but few in public life other than old Senator Robert Byrd were willing to stand and publicly state the obvious.
Now in a tiny microcosm of this dynamic, we are about to "Save Pacific View" something I put in quotes as it was part of a brilliant campaign by the organizer Scott Chatfield that began with the name, which implies salvation rather than transformation of the site which would have raised the question of "to what?" When we are asked to save something, or someone, we don't ask what will happen latter; we pull out all stops to keep it from dying, or in this case a fate worse than death which would be turned over to "developers." These are the bad guys, even if like in other cities they create developments that provide public spaces that are more secure and widely used than those of surrounding public parks.
We happen to have such a park that does provide for enjoyment of grassy landscape and even running natural water called, "cottonwood creek" which is maybe a half mile away. And for gazing at the ocean, which will not be possible from Pacific View, it can be at an area overlooking the coast about a five minute stroll away, from which you can even walk right down to the beach. And just as the unspoken dark side of our Iraq invasion, (O.K., "liberation" if you like,) finally has come to pass at this very moment in time, so too city ownership of Pacific View could be a millstone around the neck of a future Encinitas.
This article "Taboo Subject: Homeless in the Park" from the journal of the National Recreation and Park Association dares bring this subject into the light. Although now there is only a small chance that this will occur, it should not completely be ignored: Will this space with a large open parklike area increase the probability of thrusting Encinitas into the most searing issue of our times, the vast difference between those with the least living among those of us lucky enough to reside here? Will there still be funds to build a homeless residence for those who may flock to this city once we are known as "friendly" to the indigent, or will we be be included in the category of "mean cities," those who by various methods, legal or otherwise, keep such people away.
Right now we are not engaging in any dialogue on actual palpable choices when we own this land. We have identified the good guys, "lovers of the arts," and the bad guys, other than myself probably a majority of residents who don't follow local issues at all. Somehow included in the contract that was signed last month we still have about forty days (until July 28) to identify actual, rather than ethereal, uses of this three acre parcel, and first decide whether it's even possible. Any sizable performance space, the most common suggested use, will probably be ruled out based on the authority of the Coastal Commission to reject any structure that will decrease availability of parking for beach goers.
There is a parcel (Link to Video Below) that is available to us at Encinitas Town Center, Leucadia and El Camino Real, that including available public parking has as much useful area as Pacific View. Rather than a cost for the the land of ten million dollars this is owned by the city, and actually could legally realize the ideal of performance spaces along with teaching facilities. This would be both a benefit for this broad area called New Encinitas which would be in closer proximity to more moderate priced housing for undiscovered artistic talent.
Our city has a long list of approved unfunded capital projects, some designed to prevent pedestrian and driver casualties, others with different benefits. Yet, in the course of a few months, this purchase was elevated to the front of the list, with plenty of generated emotion and impassioned emails from perhaps one percent of the citizens of this city.
While at times analysis can lead to paralysis, as stated by one member of the council who will no longer be there when we close on this property next year; usually analysis is valuable. It would have been useful when a handful of people in Washington were fomenting public thirst for a war that now, a decade later, is unleashing the homicidal rage of a billion people in that part of the world. And on an infinitely smaller scale, this deserves the appropriate analysis of real choices and consequences that is still possible in the five weeks left to actually consider all aspects of this purchase.
Video of Performance parcel at Encinitas Town Center
Article on details of pacific view sales contract with link to council discussion
Links to Peak Democracy Company's "Open Town Hall" Evaluative Articles
*Direct Democracy as illusion, my article that explores this premise as applied to this issue.
Home town Berkeley paper describes devious activities of Peak Democracy company, and its founders--- you can skip the local details to get to the principle of selective reporting of their surveys to reach the results they, or their sponsors desire.
Email Conversation ( in article April update) with unnamed city council member who followed up on some questions raised here. It includes focused questions to the city manager on the economic value of the D.P. contract, and the larger issues of governance.
Link to Column that accuses Peak Democracy of being dedicated to helping city government ignore the wishes of the public.
Link to Article by Zelda Bronstein in Dissent Magazine that describes the formation of P.D., along with an intensive analysis of the deep harm of trying to transform the inherently emotionally stressful participation in local government into- as it's President describes, something to "delight and thrill"
Hackers Lurking in Vents and Soda Machines- N.Y Times article that describes how anything short of paranoia over these dangers is unrealistic. Assuming that no harm will come with new internet based connections is gross irresponsibility.
Article describing the European Parliament advancing legislation to prevent Internet unapproved commercial use of private information. This would negate several of the TOS clauses of Peak Democracy--for them, not us.
Full Meeting Video (first 2hr. 40 min.) of presentation and discussion on March 5 of this issue
Home town Berkeley paper describes devious activities of Peak Democracy company, and its founders--- you can skip the local details to get to the principle of selective reporting of their surveys to reach the results they, or their sponsors desire.
Email Conversation ( in article April update) with unnamed city council member who followed up on some questions raised here. It includes focused questions to the city manager on the economic value of the D.P. contract, and the larger issues of governance.
Link to Column that accuses Peak Democracy of being dedicated to helping city government ignore the wishes of the public.
Link to Article by Zelda Bronstein in Dissent Magazine that describes the formation of P.D., along with an intensive analysis of the deep harm of trying to transform the inherently emotionally stressful participation in local government into- as it's President describes, something to "delight and thrill"
UT article on the city's adoption of this service.
Peak Democracy Terms of Service
required to
be accepted by citizens to use this system. I was told personally by
the City attorney that this would be replaced by one dictated by the
city. Subsequent communication by Mr. Cohen to a member of the council,
did not indicate any such global revision was anticipated by his
company.
Special
notice should be given to this item from the terms of service which
confirms the "60 minutes" story that exposes these practices:
13.1.Some of the Services may be supported by
advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions.
These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information
stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other
information.
13.2.The manner, mode and extent of advertising
by PD on the Services are subject to change without specific notice
to you.Hackers Lurking in Vents and Soda Machines- N.Y Times article that describes how anything short of paranoia over these dangers is unrealistic. Assuming that no harm will come with new internet based connections is gross irresponsibility.
Article describing the European Parliament advancing legislation to prevent Internet unapproved commercial use of private information. This would negate several of the TOS clauses of Peak Democracy--for them, not us.
Full Meeting Video (first 2hr. 40 min.) of presentation and discussion on March 5 of this issue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)