[OldNorth] Be Careful What You Write: City Staff Are Monitoring

Tue Oct 12 14:13:42 PDT 2004

People on this Old North list serv should be aware that a city 
employee is monitoring our postings and has at least once forwarded 
one of them to other city employees and even the City Council. These 
employees have also made at least one effort officially to neutralize 
remarks between Old North residents that were not directed to City 
officials.

Here are the specifics. You will recall that last Sunday I posted a 
small item calling attention to and briefly commenting on the 
Emlen-Wolcott  report on growth and housing projections. (It is 
reproduced below as Item One.)

As you can read below, the monitoring official forwarded this to high 
level City staff and one of them crafted a commentary that seems 
intended to neutralize my brief and tentative remarks. This implicit 
critique was then sent to all members of the City Council (Item Two, 
below).

When I received Item Two, I asked its author several questions about 
the reasons for and the propriety of his behavior. This email is 
reproduced below as Item Three.

Finally, the author responded to my questions by declaring his 
interest in the "free flow of information," among other amazing 
remarks (Item Four).

This episodes tells us that members of this list should be careful 
about what they write here. We are the subjects of, in my view, a 
"City government surveillance operation." This operation takes our 
exchanges among our selves that are preliminary and not intended for 
city employees as matters that these employees can pass around among 
themselves, rebut, and bring to the attention of the City Council.

Of course, those who WANT their views to go straight to the top of 
Davis government should post here frequently and at length! We might 
have an active listener who attends to even the smallest of our 
utterances and can decide to speed them on to people in power.

John Lofland

___________

ITEM ONE

>>>  John Lofland <jflofland at ucdavis.edu> 10/10/2004 12:57:36 PM >>>
Old Northers,

Item 08 in this week's Council packet is by planners Emlen and
Wolcott and titled "Growth Phasing & Fair Share Allocations."

It contains tables of projected housing construction approvals by
year over the next decade or so.

Of immediate relevance to us, the major housing predicted within the
1917 City I noticed was 20 units on B Street.

We know, however, that quite a lot of housing construction is going
on and planned in the Original City.

The question is: Is it in our interest to lobby to include
projections for us or not?

And, of course, it is exceedingly odd, to me, for planners to project
20 new units on B when there is a considerable struggle on that point
going on and such a number may or may not actually be anywhere near
the outcome.

But, then, the projections assume that Covell Village will be
approved and built!  The year by year numbers are given in
considerable detail.

Such a planning exercise as this is a version of the self-fulfilling
prophecy: A thing happens importantly as a consequence of a belief
that it will happen rather than because factors in the nature of the
situation making it happen.

John Lofland

ITEM TWO
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:41:10 -0700
From: "Bob Wolcott" <BWolcott at ci.davis.ca.us>
To: <jflofland at ucdavis.edu>
Cc: "Anne Brunette" <abrunett at ci.davis.ca.us>,
    "Bill Emlen" <BEmlen at ci.davis.ca.us>, "Don Saylor" <DSaylor at ci.davis.ca.us>,
    "Esther Polito" <EPolito at ci.davis.ca.us>,
    "Ruth Asmundson" <RAsmundson at ci.davis.ca.us>,
    "Stephen Souza" <SSouza at ci.davis.ca.us>, <suegreen at dcn.davis.ca.us>,
    <dnsaylor at dcn.org>, <tedpuntillo at prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [OldNorth] Emlen-Wolcott Growth Projections
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.41
Status:  

Hi John, Thanks for your interest. I hope the following information
allays some of the concerns in your email.

This report raises some "big picture" issues about where we are going
in terms of approving residential infill units and possibly peripheral
units in the future, particularly how many and when.  These issues are
related to whether any units that might be approved would count toward
the next fair share requirement period (that is, building permits issued
after Jan. 2006) and whether the City adheres to a general parameter of
250 units to meet internal needs, rather than an average of 470 + units
per year since 1987.

This report will initiate a discussion of these issues, with more work
needed.

The B Street Corridor line item showing the potential for 20 additional
units could include some future redevelopment on the DJUSD site.  With
such a redevelopment of DJUSD, the 20 units would be low.  Without such
a redevelopment, the 20 units would probably be high, unless one also
considers adding an assumption for other sites like the Civic Center
fields site.

The Fifth and J area line item showing 10 units is probably high.  The
number 6 probably would have been more appropriate. 

Figures 1 and 2 which show if we approve all of the infill and
peripheral projects shown, we might see 700 units in some years, far
exceeding the 250 parameter.  Figure 2 shows how the City might adhere
to the 250 parameter.

In conclusion, these are preliminary estimates that hopefully will aid
the consideration of the "big picture" issues on Tuesday night, without
grossly overstating the potentials on infill sites based on
compatibility, neighborhood conservation, etc.

Thanks again for your interest.

ITEM THREE
_______________________________________________

>>>  John Lofland <jflofland at ucdavis.edu> 10/11/2004 12:27:36 PM >>>
Hello Bob,

I have been looking through my "out" email to see if I sent you the
message  on which you have elected to comment to me. Did I send it to
you, but then I forgot?

If I did not send it to you, how did you come to see it? Are you
monitoring the Old North List serv?

Since it was not directed to you, why do you feel it justified to
write me on a message to which you are not a party?

And, why would you feel it appropriate to send your response to so
many city officials? Let me assure you that if I have something to
say to any of those people I will say it directly myself. I do not
want or need you to carry my messages, especially since what I wrote
was NOT directed to any of them. Do I not have a right to bring up
issues with fellow Old North residents and discuss them in advance of
approaching officials? After all, my resident-peers might change my
mind.

And, you commented on my note only to me. Why did you not respond to
the dozens of Old North people on the list serv? Are they not as
worthy of knowing your views as the city staff?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these matters.

John Lofland

ITEM FOUR

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:15:22 -0700
From: "Bob Wolcott" <BWolcott at ci.davis.ca.us>
To: <jflofland at ucdavis.edu>
Cc: "Anne Brunette" <abrunett at ci.davis.ca.us>,
    "Bill Emlen" <BEmlen at ci.davis.ca.us>,
    "Esther Polito" <EPolito at ci.davis.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Your note to me
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.41
Status:  

Hi John, I received a copy of your email from Anne Brunette.  I thought
since it referred to the staff report I would give you the background on
the topic.  Your comments raised some good issues that Bill Emlen and I
thought the Council might be interested as they work through the policy
issues before them.

We viewed the notes as a "free flow" of information and thoughts.
Hopefully it was useful.  No problem if you want to send on to a group
list you may have.

Thanks...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20041012/c53dd833/attachment.html>