Bullfight

Dan--

I think you are being a bit disingenuous about this "developer slate" nomenclature. That term was applied by opponents of the slate, which was formed by the candidates themselves because they discovered they shared many of the same policy priorities. It should not be surprise that developers support it; they like sound planning and sustainable public policy as much as you and I do. Their business interests certainly benefit from it, but then so do yours and mine. Why isn't it called the "consultant's slate"? Perhaps because no one has made "consultants" a pejorative term.

For another perspective on development, check out my new blog at www.norcalblogs.com/dog and scroll down to "Support Your Local Developer".

Every two years the so-called progressives rally their base by demonizing development and the people who invest in it. Personally, I think it's cowardly to do that instead of addressing the very serious challenges facing Chico, such as eroding public safety, crumbling infrastructure, incipient homelessness, deficit spending, and a stagnating downtown. These are the issues working families are worried about, and the reason the slate, for all its purported "ties" to developers, is receiving so much support from people across a broad spectrum of economic interests.

When people raise their kids with the foreknowledge that they probably won't find decent employment opportunities or be able to afford to buy a home here, trotting out the bogeyman of developers selling off Bidwell Ranch is not just misleading, its irresponsible and frankly cynical political sleight-of-hand. Taking advantage of peoples' ignorance and fearfulness isn't new to politics, but it is certainly contrary to the neighborliness that makes Chico such a great place to live, work, and raise families.

Alan,

I agree that many developers contribute greatly to our community.

I think the campaign hyperbole cuts both ways, which I'll write about later.

But since you and Lon Glazner are involved with the Hooker Oak Alliance, I look forward to debating the "political sleight-of-hands" listed in the recent Hooker Oak Alliance mailer.

For example, the recent Hooker Oak Alliance mailer blames the Council majority for annexing "thousands of County residents yet has failed to improve Chico's neighborhoods."

It's my recollection that annexation of unincorporated County islands within Chico has been unanimously supported by all Councilors regardless of political leanings.

I believe that all City Councilors have also worked hard to try to allocate funds, particularly redeveloment funds, to improve existing neighborhoods.

We're way behind the curve, but I don't think you can simply blame two years under Scott Gruendl as Mayor. Blame every City Councilor over the last few decades.

But all of this still begs the question I highlighted regarding the E-R editorial.

If there is no developer slater, why did the E-R feel compelled to single out the developers who contributed to the slate's campaign in the newspaper's report on the latest campaign contribution filings?

Seems like the E-R is simply reinforcing the campaign themes that surface every two years.

Alan & Dan:

If a candidate or group of candidates forms under a single issue that issue becomes the defining element among the group. There may be a whole host of other issues that these men share (indeed I imagine they are more closely a clone of each other), but they certainly don't discuss too many other issues.

It seems based upon the slate's mailers that the only thing they are concerned about are the number of births occuring within city limits (i.e. "raised his family here" "raised his family in Chico" "husband and father").

I've never found the ability to procreate a necessary feature in a candidate for office. But being a good father certainly is a testament to character (among others certainly). It just becomes the bare minimum in expectations of someone - that if they procreate they take some responsibility).

Because I have no children, does that mean I am any less of a man? What if I choose not to have children, would I make a bad candidate for office? Do I not think about the issues facing Chico - or should I stay at home and raise my family?

The other item (separate from Bidwell Ranch) that consistently appears in the candidate mailers of the developer slate is "practical business experience," yet I don't see Scott Gruendl favored over a loan officer and recent college graduate. While having had a job or even a current job should be a plus, I'm not sure it should be your shining star on the mailers a candidate sends out.

The latest mailer tells us to vote for "all three candidates" on a flyer that only identifies Bidwell Ranch and Meghdadi's lawsuit as "bad leadership" (some would call these two items as leadership).

If all you have are three people organized around Bidwell Ranch and a developers lawsuit with nothing else but "we're parents who live and work in Chico," you've got a *developer slate*.

And if one of the mailers is distributed and "Paid for by Dan Herbert for City Council", the slate may be called the Human Developer Slate (reference to cloning).

What's the difference between these guys?

P.S. Developer is not a pejorative term. "Consultants" as a euphemism for something else should be.

Are developers evil? The appelation is used as a slur against these candidates as if people who build homes are performing illegal or immoral acts.

Would a fair response be to call the Gruendl, Flynn, Nichols cabal the "welfare slate" or the "pot head" slate? Though I doubt it is provable I bet more of those people support them than the so called "developer slate".

The scare tactics of Gruendl and friends is divisive, prejudicial and will probably work.

One of the interesting ads I heard was a womans voice calling for a change in direction on the City Council. Turns out the ad is for Greundl and company. But if they are already in power.......?

I just find it unfortunate that our community cannot come together to fight the real evil-doers in the world - the terrorists who are plotting destruction of our way of life.

Sorry, I couldn't resist injecting some more campaign cliches into the mix. :-)

By the way, I think Randall's ready to organize the Procreate Slate for the next election cycle.

Just think of all the creative campaign slogans, like "Vote to Procreate" or "A Vote for the Procreate Slate...Is a Vote for Chico's Future - Literally."

And yes, Ron, speaking of scare tactics, I'm definitely fearful of the $40 million projected deficit that Dan Herbert, Steve Bertagna, Larry Wahl, and the Council majority supposedly created together.

I'll be waiting for the Gruendl, Flynn, Nichols defacto "slate" to be placing their own campaign materials together (note that no candidate in this "slate" has issued campaign materials on behalf of the other).

I'm not sure "pot heads" vote...but it's possible I suppose. Certainly the Chico Cannibas Coalition used to vote, but as they are not pushing tens of thousands of dollars into any particular campaign maybe it is a misguided dig.

I don't see this "Gruendl slate" as attempting to influence the amount of funding for Aid to Families with Dependent Children" but that might qualify as a characteristic of "raised (a) family in Chico" designation.

I'm not sure what "scare tactics" the "Gruendl slate" is implementing but I certainly appreciate the superimposed image of a child climbing over a fence with yet another superimposed kit held in his hand. There must not have been too many people itching to get to Bidwell Ranch that the D-slate couldn't get a snapshot. Silly, I know. But so is the image and so are the "scare tactics" I think Ron is referring to.

It is interesting to note that the only people identifying developers as "evil" or using it as a pejorative term are members of the developer slate by proxy through the Hooker Oak Alliance. I'm a real estate broker *and* a developer and obviously I don't think development is bad. But if my only focus in running for office was just to build homes on a preserve, I might be a little short sighted. I think that's what the derogatory connotation is being derided here is all about.

The Hooker Oak Alliance and the Developer Slate was formed out of offense to Bidwell Ranch. Don't believe it? Take a look at their only campaign materials. Surprised that the name "Developer Slate" has taken hold? I wouldn't be. There was a concerted effort to change this singular focus by highlighting the fact that the three candidates have chosen to populate the world with 8 children. Again, I'm not sure how that might make someone dramatically a better candidate for city council. Certainly I don't understand how it might be a substantially differentiating component. If these were the only requirements for candidacy or experience, I suppose there are several other fathers (and mothers for that matter) that should run that may not have been formed out of the Bidwell Ranch preserve.

If the D-Slate would come up with a few more campaign ideas, perhaps the Chico voters would be a bit more convinced. But simply procreating, being a father (and unquestionably good fathers at that), and being upset about an open space preserve are not the finest reasons to vote for a candidate. There must be more and we should demand it.

We are.

But if the term "developer" is not pejorative, why do the D-slate supporters so detest it? It must be because it exemplifies their singular focus - and that *is* bad for a campaign.

Interesting topics today gents, finally some real conversation.

Randall asks if there's any difference to Herbert, Sorenson and Dailey. Fair enough, but what's the difference between Gruendl, Flynn, and Nickell (other than Nickell not being able to speak clearly at the forum?)? What was the difference between Schwab and Holcombe? What does it matter if they do have differences?

I received the Hooker's Alliance mailer and liked the picture of the kid on the gated off land. How come "open space" is closed off to the public. We bought it, why can't we use it?

Dan, you keep brining up the unanimous vote argument, saying that Dan Herbert can't complain about items he voted for. I could be wrong, but as I understand it, if you vote against something on the council, you can't bring it up later for rediscussion.

Which means the minority often has no choice but to go along with the majority. Irregardless, in my opinion the majority of the council has to take responsibility for the state of the city, good and bad. Our roads have been neglected, we're broke but we're paying $70,000 for chess tables in the new cement park. Shouldn't we hold our mayor accountable for that?

Dane

Hi Dane,

Good questions. I'll try to respond to a few:

1. I don't know all the positions of each candidate, but from what I've heard and read, here are some possible differences between Gruendl, Flynn, and Nickell on some past and current issues:

Enloe: I think Flynn and Nickell might have voted against the expansion on the existing site, whereas Gruendl and Herbert supported it.

Mechoopda Casino: I think Flynn and Nickell have stated they opposed City discussions about providing public safety services, whereas Gruendl and Herbert voted to initiate discussion.

Wal-Mart in North Chico: Not sure if Flynn and Nickell have taken positions, but clearly Gruendl has based on his voter pamphlet candidate statement.

Disc Golf Course: Nickell prefers to move the course, whereas I believe Flynn and Gruendl prefer to improve the existing site. This issue has not come up for a final vote to the City Council so I could be mistaken.

This is just off the top of my head. But I asked Mark Sorensen in my blog if there were any differences between him and Herbert and he never responded. See thread below:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/bullfight/archives/2006/09/endorsements.html

2. Bidwell Ranch open space. The City just hired River Partners to organize the public planning process to develop a management plan for the property, which includes a public access component. You might think: "Who needs a plan?" Well, you need to develop trails in appropriate places and consider the balance of public access with mitigation bank purposes.

If you like the kid holding the kite in the Hoooker Oak Alliance mailer, give kudos to Lon Glazner. I think it's his son. I think he stole the kite from Scott Gruendl. I'm kidding.

By the way, I don't know the story behind that trespassing sign but it was up when Dan Herbert was Mayor too. The sign is not some byproduct of a "liberal" Council majority. It's been hanging up on that fence for many years. I haven't heard any Councilors, even Herbert or Bertagna, ask for the sign to be removed.

3. I keep bringing up Dan Herbert's budget votes because I think it's very hypocritcal for him to lambast other Councilors for "projected deficits" when he voted for those same annual budgets too.

I served on the City Council when he was Mayor. He was a good Mayor - ran good meetings too. But his election spin on the overall budget is downright disingenuous.

And he did NOT vote for those budgets because he wanted to retain the right to bring back the budget for further discussion or reconsideration.

When that occurs, Councilors typically communicate that position on record so it's clear they're only voting for something in order to reserve the right to bring back the issue.

Herbert did not communicate this rationale. Regardless, if he really voted in favor of those budgets to reserve the right to discuss the budget again, he would have asked to agendize the budget again by now. But he hasn't.

It's highly questionable that Herbert, Bertagna, and Wahl voted to support all those annual budgets just because they wanted to bring up the issue for reconsideration.

If you applied this logic to every vote, I guess I could go back and retract every "yea" vote during my four years on the City Council and tell people I only voted in favor because I wanted to reserve the right to reconsider the issue.

And to my recollection, I only did that a few times and made it very clear I was opposed to the vote but was only voting in favor to bring the issue back for reconsideration.

4. I think the Council majority should take responsibility where there are differences. Chess tables are fair game. Bidwell Ranch is fair game. Parking structure, Enloe expansion, development impact fees, requiring a specific plan in Northwest Chico, Oak Valley development, and Tuscan Ridge development, to name a few, are all fair game.

If the only reason you don't like the new City Plaza are the chess tables, then you can blame the Council majority.

But if you don't like the overall final design of the rennovated City Plaza, then blame all of them rather than a select few.

If you think the roads have been neglected, tell us why those roads weren't neglected before Scott Gruendl became Mayor. I don't recall that our roads were better when Dan Herbert, Maureen Kirk, Steve Bertagna, and Rick Keene were Mayor.

Our roads are being improved, however slowly, but I don't think you can blame decades of neglected maintenance and traffic bottleneck on one group. Blame everyone.

If you're concerned about the costs of annexation, then direct your blame to the entire City Council since all of them support annexation.

Yes, I agree we need to hold the Mayor and each City Councilor accountable for their individual votes where there are differences - unless they want to revise history, take no responsibility, and say they only voted in favor of something to reserve the right to reconsider the issue.

But when it's a unanimous Council vote, you're practicing selective blaming by blaming one group while not acknowledging shared responsiblity by another group.

Apologies for being long-winded (or long on typing), Dane, but you asked some very legitimate, fair questions.

The Hooker Oak Alliance and the Developer Slate was formed out of offense to Bidwell Ranch.

This is simply not true. The Hooker Oak Alliance was an informal breakfast club that shared a common concern that there was no organization advocating politically for their shared priorities. Those folks were not developers, but the same upstanding citizens that have been involved in the economic development/commerce networks for many years. The choice to form a PAC to raise money and support candidates and ballot measures was that of a handful of people who were concerned about the future of Chico, not looking to advance their personal financial interests. That hundreds of honorable and involved citizens have joined them is a testament to their broad appeal to a great many people who are not, as it happens, developers.

The slate was formed by the candidates themselves. The spark plug for that was Michael Dailey. His ability to work with historically antagonistic interests to form consensus and make progress is impressive, and his commitment to public service is admirable. I believe it was his example that inspired both of the other candidates to commit to the campaign, and to work together to offer a clear alternative to the status quo. Their decision to run as a slate was a surprise to the Hooker Oak Alliance.

Certainly in the process of evaluating the candidates prior to making its endorsement, the HOA steering committee held long and frankly argumentative discussions about endorsing fewer than three candidates, more than three candidates, or a mix including non-slate condidates. Indeed, some members argued, if unpersuasively, to consider endorsing Gruendl, despite his vituperative mischaracterizations of the Alliance's intentions, for the simple reason that he is very likely to be re-elected, and we will want to be able to work with the whole council, not just those we agree with.

As a matter of fact, I have worked with Scott on a number of issues over the years. I have praised his leadership, and appreciated the many times he went to the mat despite the political fallout to support sound policy. We disagree about many issues, but I have found him to be an adept, adroit, and effective councilor and mayor. I consider him a friend, and wish him the best.

But I also believe that the current majority has made policy to pay back its supporters, at considerable cost and with little benefit to show for it. I expect both incumbents to be returned to office, but I do hope that the remaining seat goes to either Dailey or Sorensen, because I think a counterpoise to reflexively obstructionist policy is needed very badly at this point.

Development is the least of my issues. I have a home (and it was built by a developer, although a half a century ago), and do not care, personally, if another stick goes up in the region. I do have a serious concern about economic development. Dan and I have worked hard at encouraging home-grown entrepreneurial businesses to grow in Chico to create jobs, wealth, and opportunity. And I believe that the current climate, stifling the ability of investors to acquire, entitle, and improve parcels both within and adjacent to Chico, diminishes the ability for dynamic emerging growth companies to succeed here.

Annexation is a good thing, and I support all the councilors who have voted to pursue a strategy to annex those islands. But there still is no plan to fully integrate those neighborhoods. I agree that the entire council shoulders the blame for that, but the council, and its constituent committees, have been dominated by the so-called progressives for eight years. The deficit of leadership on this issue is properly debited to the progressives' account.

The acquisition of parcels for possible inclusion in the park system with no plan to improve and no resources to maintain is irresponsible, and is clearly the priority of the party in power. The Bidwell Ranch fiasco is dismaying, but it is by far less so than the Oak Valley decision, or the Comanche Creek decision. Given that today's children will likely have to buy homes in Orland and find jobs in Redding, it's entirely inaccurate to say that their future is being mortgaged for these lamentable decisions; it is being hocked, instead.

My apologies for going on, but as I have said in the past, untruths about the Hooker Oak Alliance will be refuted wherever they are littered about. This is a fiercely principled organization, animated by a shared vision and core values, and committed to fair and honest advocacy without resorting to negative campaigning, ad hominem argument, or character attacks. I will cheerfully stipulate that all the candidates in the election are persons of good character and noble intent. It is their judgment, however, that distinguishes them, and in our considered analysis, Dailey, Herbert, and Sorensen exhibit a stronger knowledge and understanding of the issues, and the consequences of capricious choices.

I personally like and admire Scott Gruendl and Tom Nickell. I don't know Mary Flynn well enough to say, but I believe I could work with her in office as well. But I do not agree with their priorities, and I have concerns about their suitability to lead Chico in a constructive direction. I will not be voting for a "slate", but for the three candidates that appear to be best qualified to address our community's challenges. You are certainly entitled to disagree, and I will entertain arguments that explain why. But simply dismissing Dailey, Herbert, Sorensen as lapdogs of landrapers is the seediest of ad hominem argument, and I agree with the E-R's editorial that is has no legitimate place in the civic deliberation. It's a pavlovian strategy to rile up the double-digit IQs nursing a reflexive animosity to anyone enjoying economic momentum. If it succeeds, it will be a sad day for Chico.

Make your case, but leave the sneering name-calling on the school playground where it belongs.

Alan,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Let me respond to a few issues.

The Hooker Oak Alliance was an informal breakfast club that shared a common concern that there was no organization advocating politically for their shared priorities.

All I know is the Hooker Oak Alliance has apparently evolved since the primary earlier this year. I ran into Maureen Kirk after her primary interview with the Hooker Oak Alliance.

Out of curiosity, I asked her who sat around the table during her interview with the Hooker Oak Alliance. She mentioned Jason Bougie from the Building Industry Association, Pete Giampoli from Epick Homes, Pat Conroy from Conroy Homes, local developers Bill Bouhard and Doug Guillon (Ottterson Drive extension proponents), in addition to a few other non-developers like Lon Glazner and dentist Ken Lange.

All of these guys are good folks, but if they were part of this informal breakfast club, I can only suspect that their common concern was developing more homes for “working families.”

But I also believe that the current majority has made policy to pay back its supporters, at considerable cost and with little benefit to show for it.

And if the Hooker Oak Alliance candidates win, those candidates will likely make decisions to pay back their supporters - like adding more growth areas to study for eventual expansion, lowering development impact fees, and pushing for a second downtown parking structure.

The accusation that Council policies are dictated by narrowly interested supporters could be similarly made about the Rick Keene-led City Councils of the past.

Remember the proposed Otterson Drive road and bridge project? That project was a low-priority capital improvement project until one year it suddenly became one of the highest “economic development” priorities.

At that time a Rick Keene-led City Council pushed the project to “pay back its supporters.” It took a citizen referendum to ultimately overturn a Council majority vote.

I just cite the Otterson Drive example to illustrate that "paying back supporters" cuts both ways, if you believe that is how many local government policies are set.

I agree that the entire council shoulders the blame for that, but the council, and its constituent committees, have been dominated by the so-called progressives for eight years. The deficit of leadership on this issue is properly debited to the progressives' account.

You’re giving too much credit to the “so-called progressives.” A “progressive” leaning City Council has not dominated City policies for eight years.

Last I checked Scott Gruendl has been Mayor for the last two years. Maureen Kirk was Mayor before him. But for almost half of her two-year term, Coleen Jarvis was either sick or no longer serving in office. Before Maureen Kirk’s mayoral term, the City Council leaned “conservative” with Dan Herbert, Steve Bertagna, and Rick Keene as Mayor.

By my count, that means during the last 10 years, six years were “dominated” by “conservatives,” while three years were “dominated” by “progressives.”

That “$40 million projected deficit” that the Hooker Oak Alliance is emphasizing didn’t just develop over the last three years because of $70,000 chess tables.

So if you want to divide the blame for deteriorating roads, annexed County residents, projected budget deficits, and worsening traffic over the last decade, let’s make it simple and say the “conservatives” are responsible for 60% of Chico’s problems, the “liberals” are responsible for 30%, and they can share the blame for the remaining 10%. :-)

This is a fiercely principled organization, animated by a shared vision and core values, and committed to fair and honest advocacy without resorting to negative campaigning, ad hominem argument, or character attacks..

I have many friends who have contributed to or support the Hooker Oak Alliance.

But those people complaining about The Esplanade League’s campaign hyperbole might want to review the last Hooker Oak Alliance campaign mailer, which littered a few fair arguments with lots of negativity and was, by some accounts, lacking in “fair and honest advocacy.”

Alan -

But simply dismissing Dailey, Herbert, Sorensen as lapdogs of landrapers is the seediest of ad hominem argument, and I agree with the E-R's editorial that is has no legitimate place in the civic deliberation. It's a pavlovian strategy to rile up the double-digit IQs nursing a reflexive animosity to anyone enjoying economic momentum.

So has someone said they’re "lapdogs of landrapers?" Who said it? It certainly wasn't in the EL mailer. And nice slander, referring anyone concerned with uncontrolled growth and under-funded infrastructure as "double-digit IQs nursing a reflexive animosity to anyone enjoying economic momentum." I mean, is this really your idea of "civic deliberation?"

I think you are being a bit disingenuous about this "developer slate" nomenclature. That term was applied by opponents of the slate, which was formed by the candidates themselves because they discovered they shared many of the same policy priorities.

Perhaps Dan came up with the idea of using the “developer slate” nomenclature from last week's E-R. Here's the snippet:

City Council incumbent Dan Herbert had the second highest amount raised with contributions of $12,988 this period and a total of $13,688 raised. Herbert has financial support from Realtors and builders, including Webb Homes and Epick Homes.

Council candidate Mark Sorensen raised $9,024. Sorensen has financial support from councilor Larry Wahl and developer Steve Schuster.

Council candidate Michael Dailey received $8,845 total, including $1,000 in nonmonetary contributions like Web site and graphic design. Dailey has financial support from developers Steve Schuster and Tony Symmes.

So, maybe you ought to take up the nomenclature issue with David Little. Oops, too late! He’s confused too, which is why the E-R’s editorial is wrongheaded.

From looking at your website, I can see how you folks do try to minimize the developer connection, and perhaps why you’re touchy about the developer nomenclature. Taking a look at the Who? page, I see that about half of the names have company affiliations, and the rest don’t. A closer look reveals that Greg Webb, Pete Giampaoli, Bill Brouhard, and Steve Schuster are listed with no affiliation, yet they’re developers. How many other names on your website show no affiliation but are actually developers?

Chuckles--

Just a brief note to say that I do not engage with people who do not self-identify.

--Ax

Ax -

Just a brief note to say that I do not engage with people who do not self-identify.

I can understand and respect that. Dan knows who I am. I have personal reasons why I choose to remain anonymous now. I've never posted anonymously before, and I have some uneasiness about being anonymous.

Chuckles is E-R publisher Wolf Rosenberg. I'm kidding.

Today's Scrabble word is chuckle.

Origin: In the sense, laugh convulsively. Late sixtenth century, from "chuck" meaning to cluck, in late middle English.

Chuckles is also the name of a candy brand:

http://www.oldtimecandy.com/chuckles.htm
http://www.candy4u.com/chuckles.html

Or some toys:

http://www.chucklestoys.com/

And a famous clown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuckles_the_Clown

But most importantly, despite some disagreements on important issues facing our community, the capacity to chuckle or laugh is essential.

Dan - Ah, Chuckles the Clown, who met his demise in Mary Tyler Moore's best episode ever, which is described in the Wikipedia entry.

The only situation comedy episode I can think of that approached the greatness of the Chuckles the Clown episode was from WKRP in which the radio station did a Thanksgiving promotion in which live turkeys were thrown out of a helicopter. You can read the dialog in Wikipedia.

Very droll. I comment on "Chuckles" and other anonymous contributors in my blog, Dog's Breakfast, today. Drop by and learn something.

Alan - From your blog posting:

I could, for example, using the library's computer, go over to Bullfight, post a scathingly vicious racist diatribe, and sign it "Chuckles". I wouldn't do that, of course, but if someone did, "Chuckles" would be, for all intents and purposes, properly and unanimously despised. When you self-identify, no one can spoof and discredit you.

Perhaps in your rush to make your point, you missed what I said. DAN KNOWS WHO I AM. When I post a message on his blog, my email address is included. So I'm not some unidentifiable troll, some random slanderous bozo hiding behind an alias. I'm a person who is known to the blogger.

BTW, I post only in Dan's blog, and no other blogs and no other newsgroups and no other forums (under any name). So if you see "Chuckles" elsewhere, it ain't me.

OK guys,

This string is getting old but I have a new comment to add. A friend just told me they received a "Republican Voting Guide" that had all of her favorites in the upper offices (Herger, Keene, etc) but for city council there was one endorsement and that was for Scott Gruendl.

Now, I don't mind Gruendl having his own liberal opinions, and for a liberal he's even an effective mayor, but what the hell? Why is he trying to run as a Republican? It's obvious he paid to be on this slate mailer. It's obvious this also won't be sent to democrat voters, so basically he's saying two different things to two different groups. Do his supporters appreciate this kind of behavior?

I think this deserves some investigation from the ER.

Dane