Bullfight

Hey Dan - Another terrific blog entry. Well done!

Don't look for the E-R to ever treat The Esplanade League fairly, either in its news coverage or its editorials. The paper always finds ways to insert its bias, of which the editorial you criticized is a perfect example. The technique is amazingly simple: state that both sides are guilty of mailing "hit pieces," then focus the remaining editorial on how liberals supposedly "lied" in their "hit piece." The fact that The Esplanade League didn't lie in its mailer, and The Hooker Oak Alliance did lie in its mailer, simply doesn't matter. The E-R can simply state that they covered the issue of lies in hit pieces. End of story. Move on.

I recall a "Miss" in a January 2004 editorial regarding Senator Boxer's January visit to Chico. They said that Boxer hadn't been to Chico in years, and implied that her visit was motivated soley by the upcoming re-election. In fact, she had visited Chico five months earlier to present an award to Chapman Elementary School -- a visit covered on the front page of the E-R.

Of course, the E-R did not correct their editorial lie after it was pointed out to them. End of story. Move on.

Both groups are guilty of some campaign hyperbole, which is expected in any election.

But I was just trying to point out that if the E-R applied the same standard to the Hooker Oak Alliance mailer, as it did with the Esplanade League mailer, the newspaper might want to draw attention to some of the Hooker Oak Alliance "lies" too.

For starters, how about a real feature story on this "$40 million projected deficit" that the Hooker Oak Alliance and Dan Herbert wants to blame the Council majority for?

I'm not a reporter, but here are some questions I'd ask:

What's driving the assumptions behind these budget projections?

What does former City Manager Tom Lando and former Assistant City Manager Trish Dunlap think since they were responsible for managing the City's budget during most of the last decade?

Does Tom Lando and Trish Dunlap think the "$40 million projected budget deficits" are the result of decisions over the last two years when Scott Gruendl has been Mayor? What do they think about the City's past and current fiscal position?

What does new City Manager Greg Jones think? He inherited the City's finances. Does he think decisions by the current City Council during the last two years resulted in his projected budget deficits?

How are the budget projections formulated differently under new City Manager Greg Jones compared to Tom Lando?

Are there costs assumptions in the current budget projections that were not factored into two years ago (under Tom Lando) compared to now under Greg Jones?

The City budget is a serious undertaking and is the primary responsibility of the City Council and City management.

So when groups and individuals want to blame one group entirely for "$40 million in projected deficits," I think our newspapers should take a hard look at the credibility of those accusations - and the assumptions driving those budget projections.

Campaign hyperbole over chess tables do not add up to "$40 million projected deficits."

Dan - Excellent questions! A responsible newspaper would surely ask them. The Sacramento Bee actually does analyze political commercials for accuracy. Too bad the E-R chooses to take cheap shots at one side of the political spectrum, instead of providing unbiased information that voters can use.

The ranting about the chess tables is expected from the conservative sector, which believes that government should fund roads, police, fire, subsidize business, and little else. The fact that great societies are measured by their committment to the arts is lost in this shortsighted view. And I would include the chess tables under "art" -- art that's actually usable!

Chuckles,

When cities put surplus money into art I agree there are some great benefits, and perhaps chess tables will compliment the park.

What seems to be a problem is the cost of the tables. Also I've heard that the artist got a no bid contract to do it. Is it possible an artist could overcharge the city in this situation and pocket more money than they're due, thus stealing from taxpayers? Would the money used for chess tables have been better spent on something else?

Honestly, I'm just glad it was chess tables and not some of the modern art crap we see these days. A recent article in the CN&R actually covered a young man who did taxidermy art and had an exhibit called "two beavers humping". Please. That is not on par with what I call real art. There's actually a funny episode of the Simpsons where Homer demolishes his lawnmower and some hoity toities call it "modern art." I wonder if people in the art community take themselves seriously sometimes.

While we're on costs, why so many charrettes and consultants? If we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants, isn't that money that doesn't go to feed the poor or light our streets at night? Aren't liberal ideals also served by efficient government? Or is it just better to pump tax money to consultants who turn around and donate to liberal campaigns?

Are there any HONEST politicians out there?

Dane

Dan, don't you remember Mr. Herbert's little graph he carried around to every political event in the last election campaign? He showed the projected budget deficit that would happen if he wasn't elected. And that was following the policies that a regressive majority on the council instituted wasn't it?

Now, speaking of hyperbole, the City's budget is going to get worse (to the tune of $40 million) according to his holiness' latest projections if he doesn't get elected again (has he even done anything for the City except cut Maureen off and whine at council meetings?). I'm pretty certain that the I-don't-think tank, that disguises itself as a PAC of hard working, family-types, and wood whores (ok Hooker Oaks), came up with the numbers as it seems well beyond his creative capabilities. They are following Bush's political theory that if you repeat a lie often enough pretty soon you believe your own lie and now we have Dan's Weapons of Mass Budget Deficites (WMBDs)! I guess it isn't a lie if it is a projection.

Dan,
I think the reason why Herbert et al. want voters to decide on Bidwell Ranch is because they know no developer would risk investing in it without knowing that a development there had solid community support and wasn't going to be the subject of a referendum. They said as much at the LWV forum Oct. 16.

Bob,

Thanks for providing an interesting nuance to the discussion.

Even an advisory ballot measure asking whether to sell Bidwell Ranch for housing development would not yield the risk mitigating results a developer would want before purchasing Bidwell Ranch property.

No developer would want to purchase the Bidwell Ranch property without entitlements that secure his or her right to develop.

Local developer Rick Coletti's conceptual offer to "purchase" Bidwell Ranch required that the City entitle the property to essentially shift all financial risk from the developer to the City if a referendum ever took place.

I still believe ultimately that the reason some people push the "let the voters decide" argument is because they want to sell parts of Bidwell Ranch.

An election to simply test the waters whether there is "solid community support" to develop Bidwell Ranch is just a means to have an opportunity to convince more people that parts of Bidwell Ranch should be sold.

the reason some people push the "let the voters decide" argument is because they want to sell parts of Bidwell Ranch

I can't speak for "some people", but I believe it would be wise to entitle and sell the lowland areas that are not in the viewshed to raise some cash. Appropriately encumbered, it could be a great opportunity to create an intentional neighborhood embracing the best practices of new urbanist design strategies, and still preserve 500 acres for posterity.

Urbanist design strategies??? Have you seen all the new developments in town?? What makes you think that selling off parts of Chico's greatest natural resource would inspire a nice neighborhood? Chico doesn't need more housing. We can't provide the necessary services for our current population. Economic growth doesn't necessarily mean more houses.

Chico's greatest natural resource

Chico's greatest natural resource is neighborliness, a kind-hearted generosity of spirit. Can't be bought, sold, traded or bartered; it's takes a neighborhood.