Google

Press Banner Login






Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
Where did the thought police come from? PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Written by Press Banner Letters |   
Friday, 25 April 2008

 

A letter to the editor from Mike Burns 

 


I’ve been a business owner in Felton for more than 25 years. Over the years, I’ve supported numerous organizations and projects in a variety of ways. Until about 15 years ago, I was involved in local politics, but I really didn’t have the temperament. To say I was naive is an understatement. Without going into details, the experience left me with little faith in the public utterances of our elected officials or candidates for public office, regardless of party. I’m still paying attention, but I try to keep my opinions to myself.

 

This past week, someone I’ve respected for years asked if she could place a petition in my place of business. Being somewhat familiar with the issue and without really considering the possible ramifications, I said, “Sure.” The issue isn’t really germane to this discussion, but my impression was that the petition represented a shared position within the community.

Anyway, the head of another nonprofit campaign, engaged in a separate effort, which I support, came in the other day. I was doing errands. He saw the petition on the shop counter. The next day, his wife was in. She’s very active in another effort, which I also support. She sought me out, telling me I was on the “wrong side” of the issue presented in the petition. She named the local politicians who were on the “right side,” advising me I was being told half-baked truths. These two are also people I have known and respected, so I listened to the new information, realizing once again that people I know and respect have different views on a wide variety of issues.
This woman, who had taken the time to offer me this new information, went on to advise me that her husband, despite the fact I’m in support of his particular cause, was no longer going to patronize my business because I displayed a petition with which he disagreed. It turns out there are at least four other businesses in Felton that have been threatened with retribution.

So, now we get to the point.

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?

You know, folks, I have my life invested in providing a business service to this community. Like most people, I’ve been less-than-perfect in my approach to business and life in general. Sometimes I lose my temper and alienate people. I often make missteps, but I’m still there pitching in, trying to do the right thing. I fall short on a daily basis, but I don’t think that makes me a member of an exclusive club.

If I disagree with you on any given issue, is that good reason to boycott my business or to encourage others to do the same? How small-minded have we become?

Our country is polarized on most issues, and, you know, it seems the polarization starts with us. These are our leaders. We pick them. They start out in our backyards, our school boards, our water districts, our recreation districts, our fire districts and our nonprofits. We freely give them our support. Then, in a situation such as this, they ask us to support them in shouting down the opposition and stifling debate, and, if we don’t line up, they threaten to boycott.

Is it any wonder we hold them suspect? Or that qualified people are unwilling to become involved?

Maybe we need a good old-fashioned loyalty oath, a litmus test for the masses? A little Fahrenheit 451 for ideas with which we disagree? Maybe some War is Peace logic, straight out of “1984”? Perhaps we can bring the Patriot Act’s suspension of habeas corpus home to our community or ask our local representatives to have Sen. Joe McCarthy dug up and the House Un-American Activities Committee reconstituted.

What’s next? Why not try shunning? Or maybe we should go straight for the Brown Shirts and destroy people straight away without the inconvenience of a boycott. Now there’s a good idea.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not taking a side. God forbid I disagree with the thought police.

One last question: Where’s a guy like Richard Farina when we need him?

Mike Burns lives in Scotts Valley and is a Felton business owner.

Comments (35)Add Comment
Thanks, Mike
written by Alfredo Vargas, Ben Lomond, April 28, 2008
Thanks to Mike Burns for saying out loud what many have thought. Thought Police indeed. We are a diverse people, with many viewpoints. We should be able to get along and discuss issues in a civil manner. Threats of a boycott have no place in a civilized community. Thanks again, for speaking out and reminding us of our underlying humanity. Shame on those who have forgotten to be kind human beings first, and political operatives second.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Andrea Sanchez, April 28, 2008
They've been doing it for 30 years. Here's the line that hit me first "qualified people are unwilling to become involved" - it's true. They conduct whisper campaigns against candidates they fear.

Citizens gathered before the start of the 5th District campaign. It was determined that no one could beat Stone because the VWC would roll out their "political machine". A promising candidate said, "No thanks, not worth the cost, time and effort when it's been pre-determined who will win."

Sad state of affairs in the San Lorenzo Valley.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Marcus, April 28, 2008
Sorry to hear about the threat Mike. And thank you for speaking out. Problem is, it's more than 4 stores and it's more than just the Felton Fair development issue. They did it during the FLOW issue and every single campaign. Before this current Supervisor race, they verbally destroyed Paul Storm, water board candidate. He's an articulate, intelligent, thoughtful gentleman with genuine concern for the people of the SLV. He would have been a balancing voice on an imbalanced water board. During the FLOW campaign they attacked anyone with an opposition position. Stifled debate, boycotts, word of mouth negative campaigns, thought police tactics every time.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
This is bad.....
written by Stephen D. Homan, April 28, 2008
I have known Mike Burns for over two decades. He is my home insurance broker. I appreciate his thoughtful approach to business, life, and politics.

I am so sorry that Mike had to experience this petty political thuggery. Freedom of speech and association are among the main constructs that our country was founded on. I salute the Press Banner for printing Mike's article.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Adam Haller, April 28, 2008
The issue is not whether an individual chooses to patronize a business or not. Rather the issue is when individuals, who receive money from and lobby for local policticians, promote the boycotting of certain businesses. They have the power of the force of government behind them.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Marcus, April 28, 2008
Question for the Moshers -
1. Exactly which politicians are on your right side of the issue?
2. What half-baked truths?
3. Does AHA stand for Ad Hominem Attacks?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by slackjaw, April 28, 2008

You guys are making it really hard to run a marxist-leninist community.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Andrea Sanchez, April 28, 2008
Socialist/Statist. Well, for everyone but themselves. That's the hypocrisy. It's all about money. Money for their nonprofit, money for the developer....control and limitations for everyone else. Not the best program.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Thank you Marcus
written by Paul Storm, April 29, 2008
Thank you for your kind words, Marcus.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by constituent, April 29, 2008
Yes, historically bullying has not been very affective for controlling poplulation. When president's of local non-profit organizations start using these tactics it takes courage to speak out. Bravo Mike!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
"Community Action" by Valley Women's Club
written by Robin, April 29, 2008
Valley Women's Club is at it again. I guess when their website says, "community action", this is what they mean. Threats and intimidation. I thought VWC said they were waiting for all the information to come in before making a decision on the environmental disaster of a housing plan for the Felton Fair meadow. Sounds not only as if their minds are made up, since 'their' politicians are on the 'right' side of this issue, but that they are so scared they are wrong side they are threatening business owners. Thanks to Mike for speaking up, because the VWC really needs to be dragged into the sunlight and exposed for the manipulative people that they are. I hope the other business owners who have been threatened speak up. You will be supported by the good citizens of this Valley. Shame on you VWC!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by rjm, April 29, 2008
how do we know it's VWC? i didn't get that from the letter.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Bill, April 29, 2008
It's VWC. Read it again.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
It is very wrong....
written by Stephen D. Homan, April 29, 2008
Whoever it was, it is very wrong to threaten anyone's local business interests over politics and land use decisions. This is especially applicable when it was a matter of a friendly favor, and not one of "having a dog in the hunt."

I like to patronize SLV and SV businesses, regardless of the proprietor's possible political thoughts, or lack thereof. Variety is the spice of life, and I like the variety of folks in both valleys.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by constituent, April 30, 2008
It's been the tactics of the current VWC's president and others on the board to harass those that don't support their collaboration with SCH developer's to build 55-units in the Felton meadow. This has been going on since the project began. Mike was one of several businesses threatened to be boycotted for opposing the high-density housing proposal on septic. That's why most know who it is, it's not the first time. This is not the actions of everyone on VWC. There are some decent people in the organization still trying to be environmentally conscious. Unfortunately, the main representatives of the organization are bringing down the club's reputation by their distasteful actions.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Marcus, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Mike Burns, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Bill, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Felton Business Owner, Long Time Resident, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by Mike Burns, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Felton Business Owner, Long Time Resident, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Topic
written by Andrea Sanchez, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by Andrea Sanchez, April 30, 2008
Instead of spending our time hollering about the bad apples.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Mike Burns, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Andrea Sanchez, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Tom in Felton, April 30, 2008
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
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Felton Business Owner, Long Time Resident, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Mike Burns, April 30, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Mike Burns, April 30, 2008
Kind of like having kids. If you wait until you can afford them, you'll never have them.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Keep it simple
written by John Masterman, May 01, 2008
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!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by slackjaw, May 02, 2008

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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by Bryan, May 08, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Leadership Matters
written by Dorothy, May 09, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Alvin Vanne, May 10, 2008
Where did they come from? The Thought Police are the aging hippie political hack parents of the Dream Police, da da da da daaah.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Bryan, July 08, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1

Write comment
quote
bold
italicize
underline
strike
url
image
quote
quote
smile
wink
laugh
grin
angry
sad
shocked
cool
tongue
kiss
cry
smaller | bigger

busy