Comments for Where did the thought police come from? at http://pressbanner.com , comment 1 to 35 out of 20 comments http://pressbanner.com Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:22:16 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-1200 The problem with the Valley Women's Club is that they've lost sight of what they stand for. Their internal power struggle is due to infighting over how to raise revenue. Most of them want to stay focused on the environment, but the new board members see a cash cow in shilling for County-fronted housing developments. Obviously in conflict with their stated mission. If they would simply get back to honestly working for benevolent reasons...they just might stand a chance of getting a good reputation back. And it is very damaged right now. - Bryan Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:46:31 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-871 Where did they come from? The Thought Police are the aging hippie political hack parents of the Dream Police, da da da da daaah. - Alvin Vanne Sat, 10 May 2008 16:22:12 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-863 Mike, your passion for bottom up changes is as noble as your quest to stop those who rely upon threats of retribution instead of respectful discourse. Yes, individuals can make changes, especially when individuals collectively vote for Supervisors and other leaders who represent others besides small segments of our community whose actions toward you explain why so many have easily identififed an organization whose tactics are well known. It seems the best way to change this MO is when enough individuals elect leaders who will not cater to VWC or others who use techniques that you described in your thoughtful letter. - Dorothy Fri, 09 May 2008 20:17:31 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-859 It is time for a new Supervisor as well as a halt to this ridiculous campaign program that the VWC offers to the County in exchange for money. VWC gets money to front for government programs and chosen candidates. It's lame, it's a nefarious waste of funds that should stay in taxpayer pockets or go to needed community infrastructure. - Bryan Thu, 08 May 2008 14:43:33 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-836 But our Supervisor is not concerned and they're not going to put it on the Ballot. That leaves the alternative of getting a different supervisor. - slackjaw Fri, 02 May 2008 21:57:34 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-824 If our Supervisor and the proponants of the housing project really are as concerned as they have indicated, just put the project on the local ballot and vote on it during our upcomminng election. Simple! - John Masterman Thu, 01 May 2008 22:12:54 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-821 Kind of like having kids. If you wait until you can afford them, you'll never have them. - Mike Burns Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:03:51 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-820 I'm still staying on the sidelines regarding the issues, because I think the focus needs to be communication. If you see an "us" and "them" then that's where you have to start. Recognize though that they have consensus in their group, and while it excludes all those whose responses are included here, it remains a consensus. So come together as a group and develop a community/consensus of your own. If you've been harassed stand up. As someone said, most of the Valley is benevolent and they'll support you. And while I understand what compels the words "malevolent" and "miscreants," I don't like the words, and I don't care who they're pointed at. The debate needs to be civil at all levels, at all times. That doesn't preclude direct and forceful observation, and the opposition can be chracterized without name calling. Again I'm not just talking about land use or wtaer or any of the other issues, I'm looking at the long term, and issues that haven't surfaced yet, and the need to begin building a community/consensus now. There are always going to be immediate issues that need attention, but if you allow them, including the issues that present themselves today, to delay elevating the debate, you will never see the debate elevated. The time is always "now". Tomorrow never comes. - Mike Burns Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:11 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-819 Let's be clear. The majority of the people in the valley are benevolent. They can talk about the project without attacking. Most don't want it, some want to see more information. Almost all agree the density is too high. There is a very small number of people from one nonprofit who are malevolent. We are aware of their smear campaign and have been aware of it for many years. I know that when they stoop to that level again, the outcry will be even louder. - Felton Business Owner, Long Time Resident Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:21:44 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-818 Thanks to Mike for writing the opinion article. Mike, my business has been harassed by this particular group as well. Everyone has made good points. I agree with just about all of it. Keeping the issue under the surface just makes for more bad vibes. You've come out openly speaking against the bad tactics and from what I can see, you've had the community rally around you. I have to say though, that it's kinda hard to talk about consensus when your income and reputation is threatened. Seems to me a first step in the right direction would be to be very clear to these characters that this type of behavior is unwelcome. Tom - Tom in Felton Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:21:30 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-817 Mike, at no time did anyone posting here suggest getting rid of anyone. That's what the boycotters would like to see. I specifically said "getting rid of negative tactics" and that's an honorable goal in itself. I hear what you're saying about goals. You have excellent points. I think the majority of the community is clear that their goal is to prevent the ill-conceived development from moving forward. I agree that confrontation needs to stop and your article was a positive step in that direction. People's livelihoods are at stake when a small group of misguided miscreants try to stop others from shopping at their place of business. That's just downright rotten. Again, I agree that the best scenario for everyone is positive, open, honest conversation. And by the way, I just finished The Road Less Travelled. So there. Good talking with you. - Andrea Sanchez Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:03:22 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-816 Okay, I give, last comment....Banal talk of consensus? If you don't have a goal in mind, then you can begin by ridding the community of whatever you want, and you won't have any idea where you're going. We're not at cross purposes. I specifically didn't enter into a debate about any given project, but rather spoke to communication. So, go ahead rid the community of what you find objectionable, but do it with the goal of finding consensus. Figure that, like it or not, some of the ones you want to be rid of will still be there, and if you don't have the goal of true consensus, rather pseudo-consensus (what you described as "three self-appointed ...leaders") you won't ever get there or anywhere for that matter. I'm not saying I don't care about land use, water or whatever. That's not the debate I'm interested in, which doesn't mean you can't have that debate separate from, or in conjunction, with this. I'm suggesting that the confrontation needs to stop, and in order to accomplish that you better have an alternative in mind. Try reading a couple of books by M. Scott Peck..."A World Waiting to be Born: A Return to Civility" and "The Different Drum." Peck, who was from Connecticut, has passed, but he established The Foundation for Community Encouragement in Louisville Kentucky. Community building is an art, not a natural occurrence in a divided community. It won't just happen, and if you don't set it as a goal then you'll just end up in a see-saw battle that will supplant one psuedo-community with another. - Mike Burns Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:48:40 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-815 Instead of spending our time hollering about the bad apples. - Andrea Sanchez Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:25:09 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-814 Seems to me this is the point of the article: Where does that kind of attitude come from? What does it have to do with a close-knit community engaged in open debate? If we can agree on a wide array of issues, and possibly even candidates, does that mean that if we’re not in lock-step with every community leader’s personal politics, we can expect as business people to be boycotted? Is this the point at which polarization in our politics has its genesis? That those who are not in lockstep with certain self described community leaders receive threats of boycott is a HUGE problem and not one to be swept aside with banal talk of consensus. First stop the problem - threats and boycotts. Then, clarify the meaning of consensus. VWC used consensus to mean 3 self appointed (or developer appointed) community leaders who spoke inappropriately for thousands of community members. And those thousands of community members said, No way! Where's that petition? Let me sign that petition. So, let's get back to the topic at hand and focus on ridding our community of these negative tactics....so that we can all be proud of our effort to stop the development. - Andrea Sanchez Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:15:02 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-813 The most effective course of action is to move forward continuing to support consensus from the San Lorenzo Valley communty at large regarding the Felton Faire housing development. Those who work for the developer or whose funding is dependent upon their advertising county projects have their perspectives and priorities in place. We've tried speaking to them and have encountered only the previously discussed hostility, harassment, threats, boycotts, etc. So, twofold - consensus from the community and keeping to the high road. When we encounter less than honorable intentions, we call them on it and move on. All in all, good advice. - Felton Business Owner, Long Time Resident Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:03:10 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-812 Without staking out a territory on any issue, or subscribing to any of the pros and cons of any argument, I want to reiterate what I said before: "My point is we need to elevate the debate and begin discussing concepts rather than taking iron clad positions. I'd like to see individuals and organizations in SLV make a commitment to raise the level of discourse, end the whispering campaigns and own the fact that their past behavior has been less than honorable at times. No one in this arena comes up squeaky clean. We all get some dirt on ourselves and its not a big deal to admit to mistakes in judgment. It opens the debate up to honest exchange. People need to disavow blatant pursuit of power, come to the table with a little more humility and stop trying to make everyone who disagrees with them, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG." It has to start somewhere, so it seems to me the onus falls to the injured parties, not the offenders. If you want elevated discourse, insist on it. Show up and let go of misconceptions, generalizations, and pre-concieved notions of who the opposition is. Then stake out rational, reasoned positions and insist on a dialogue. Don't automatically expect agreement, and begin to treat one another as the loyal opposition instead of "those people". Look, none of this is easy, but it needs to start somewhere. Find someone on the other side who wants to raise the level of discourse. I don't care what side you're on, not everyone on the other side is part of the lunatic fringe. So start somewhere, find one person on the other side and begin a dialogue. Begin to build inclusive coalitions instead of exclusive coalitions. Allow for disagreement within your coalitions. Form true community rather pseudo-community, and build actual consensus. Real consensus requires an effort to abstain from the need to convert everyone to your position, allowing all sides an equal voice. - Mike Burns Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:46:11 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-811 As a Felton business owner and family which has been targeted by the self-appointed leadership of the Valley Women’s Club and their little astoturf groups, we are delighted to see our community engaged in a dialogue that ranges from concerned to outraged. Remember Mike, it is they who adopted the concept of “us” vs “them” in order to control the outcome of supervisor and water board races, bond elections and local issues like water and housing. And yes, some of them are so married to the pursuit of power that they disregard glaring components of an argument…such as, should Felton homeowners really pay $30 million (over 30 years) to give the water system to SLVWD rather than fight for true Felton ownership. And should we allow an out of town developer like South County Housing Co. to hold prefabricated meetings with predetermined outcomes, tell us our racial makeup is not “correct” and they’ll fix it for us, tell us that we need a new 60-unit neighborhood on a wetland meadow with artesian springs, endangered bugs, endangered plants, no septic in place, no drainage plan, uphill from the Felton Grove FEMA floodplain, upstream from the Santa Cruz City drinking water intake. All this from a group whose public benefit funding is derived from monitoring the environment and protection of the watershed? And now we learn that our supervisor is on “their” side of the issue. The supervisor whose board upholds policy preventing “us” from adding a bathroom, allowing grandma to live in our legal 2nd unit on 2 acres, or otherwise benevolently developing our land for more housing, yet allows South County Housing Co a pass to build 55-60 units on a 4-acre footprint. And the County gives them $3 million to do it?? Then harasses and fines the rest of us? Holy Moly! OK, breathing now. It would be nice to have us all be an “us” again. But first those of us who’ve seen harassment by the VWC or their offshoots must take the bull by the horns and tell them we’ve had it, the gig is up, they’ve lost their credibility. And while I believe the groundswell was coming anyway, it appears that your thoughtful letter has given many of us an opening to speak. Thanks Mike. - Felton Business Owner, Long Time Resident Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:52:08 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-810 Agreed Mike, good points. But too many Feltonites have experienced abuse at the hands of these women and their husbands/henchmen. Thus, the comments. It's justified and they owe a lot of people apologies. - Bill Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:33:06 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-809 It bothers me somewhat that some of the comments single out other individuals and organizations so directly. I purposely left names and organizations out of the article and i'm neither confirming nor denying any assumptions anyone has made. My point is we need to elevate the debate and begin discussing concepts rather than taking iron clad positions. I'd like to see individuals and organizations in SLV make a commitment to raise the level of discourse, end the whispering campaigns and own the fact that their past behavior has been less than honorable at times. No one in this arena comes up squeaky clean. We all get some dirt on ourselves and its not a big deal to admit to mistakes in judgment. It opens the debate up to honest exchange. People need to disavow blatant pursuit of power, come to the table with a little more humility and stop trying to make everyone who disagrees with them, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I better stop, or I'll be off on some self-righteous rant, which is exactly what I'm speaking against. Many of the comments actually miss the main point of the article, which I admit was somewhat buried in the center. The references to "Farenheit 451, thought police, etc" was meant to put an exclamation point on the argument. The point is we all need to take individual responsibility: "Our country is polarized on most issues, and, you know, it seems the polarization starts with us." It starts with "us". It's not "them", it's "us". There really is no "them", but some of "us" are so married to the pursuit of power that we lose sight of the ideals that got us involved in the first place. Simple concept really. Finally, if anyone's spreading innuendo and/or lies about me, it's not unexpected and I can take care of myself. I'm a big boy, and I learned a long time ago about "sticks and stones..." yada yada. That's why I've stayed around as long as I have. - Mike Burns Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:25:15 +0100 http://pressbanner.com/content/view/1147/41/#comment-808 You know, it's not just the boycotts. It's also intimidation and character assassination. They're already spreading garbage about Mike. They've been spreading lies about the other people in CORE fighting South County Housing. Really stupid lies that have nothing to do with the development, but are just about discrediting the person. It's the only tactic they have left. But everyone is very well aware who the people are who are doing it. - Marcus Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:29:54 +0100