Bullfight

It is pretty obvious that the E-R's editors are actively campaigning to get the developer boys back in charge in the next election.

A simple, effective campaigning technique is to simply repeat lies and distortions over and over until the public perceives them as truths.

A related technique is to never, ever say nice things about your opponents. As you pointed out, they framed the Council's appointment of non-ideological task force members in the worst light possible.

It could have been worse. I suppose they could publish their ideological propaganda on the front page, above the fold, like the E-R's owner did in Denver.

Dan,

I really like the line about "no minorities" being appointed to the GPAC. The next time David Kim is over for dinner I am going to congratulate him for the Koren-American takeover of Chico. I knew he had it in him! :)

All kidding aside, I find it interesting that in the time between the appointments and the publishing of the editorial they didn't do a little fact check on the appointees. I realize David's approval was a slam dunk (since he was the only member of the ARB to apply) but that doesn't mean it should be assumed he is a white male... and I am giving the editorial board the benefit of the doubt here by myself assuming they were making an assumption. If they did know that David is Korean-American, then shame on them for misrepresenting the ethnic heritage of a member of the committee.

In defense to the E-R, I'm guessing the editors may have meant that none of the seven "generalists" appointed to the General Plan Task Force were minorities, although the Task Force is essentially a nine-member committee.

But then again, the E-R wrote: "That's not to say it's a perfect committee. The council ended up with too many people who are (or were) professional educators and planners, and also ended up with only one woman and no minorities."

The not-so shabby committee is a nine-member committee, which includes Dave Kim. But we all make mistakes. I think I made the same mistake when Kim applied to the Planning Commission several years, forgetting he had applied and pointing out that no applicants were minorities.

But you know, it could have been worse...:-)

Dan,

I don't think that your assertion that "...the City planners who left the City lately had retirement plans years in the making or left because they were either fired or wanted to pursue other interests like traveling the world" is wholly accurate.

This excerpt from the 06-07 Grand Jury Report seems to indicate there are also other reasons:

- - -

As the Grand Jury continued to interview and re-interview members of the PSD
and other city staff, it became apparent that despite the work ethic and dedication
of staff, morale in the PSD was at a low level. Although there had been initial
optimism at the prospect of hiring a new Planning Director, it appeared that a
morale problem was present seven months later. Several frustrations were
repeated over and over again: long weekly work hours, a large workload, a lack
of leadership within the department, a lack of respect by the director for
professional opinions from the staff, and a lack of teamwork. By interviewing
almost all of the members of the PSD staff, some of them multiple times, the
Grand Jury learned that there has been a history of low morale in the department
for many years, leading to a high turnover rate and overall dissatisfaction. Other
department heads within the City of Chico confirmed this problem of ongoing low
morale.
The Grand Jury understands that change is often difficult and that when the
change is dramatic it can take time to make a difference or an impact. In the
case of the PSD, the new Planning Director has a drastically different
management style than that of the previous Director. Several staff members
expressed concern that the current Planning Director “dismisses professional
opinions,” is “condescending and disrespectful,” and “lacks a sense of
teamwork.” Other comments indicated that communication within the PSD has
become “difficult” and has “diminished in quality and effectiveness.”
While the Grand Jury generally does not become involved with personality
issues, the frequency of such comments from all levels of the PSD and the city at
large led us to be concerned for the efficiency and overall well-being of the entire
department. We learned that due to the current conditions within the PSD,
several of the most experienced city planners have applied for jobs with other
departments or possibly plan to leave the city altogether. The previous loss of
“institutional memory” caused by the retirements of key planning managers
earlier in the year coupled with the loss of several experienced planners could
prove to be a heavy blow to the PSD and the City of Chico.

Dear Concerned Citizen:

The excerpt from the Grand Jury report that you highlight seems to point fingers at City Planning Director Steve Peterson.

Maybe one or more City planners left because of issues with management, but this is not the picture the E-R has been painting.

The E-R seems to place blame wholly and squarely on three planning commissioners, even though at least one former planner clearly stated his reasons for leaving had nothing to do with the Planning Commission.

I never worked with Peterson. I do know that staff morale issues existed prior to Peterson arriving. I can't say whether morale issues have minimized or have been exacerbated under Peterson.

I also know that former City Manager Greg Jones intervened and had Dave Burkland, formerly Assistant City Manager and current interim City Manager, more actively engaged with the Planning Department earlier this year to help deal with internal issues.

Dan,

In regards to your comments about a "prepetuatiing Myth" that Monfort and O'Bryan had no conflicts or problems with the current PC is naive at best. Dan, you of anyone should know that there are public and private comments by these guys and more than once I have personally and privately been told that they had problems with Luvvass and crew to the point of frustration. Now, Dave Kelly at Planning Commission at meeting before last (Oct 18th) publically voiced his frustration during a routine conceptual review of a project. I say routine but they took over 2 hours and I believe 37 specific items were brought up and a 180 was done on the project even though it had been in front of PC already twice (typical routine from, Luvvass, Minasian and Merz). As usual they were way out of their bounds. Hope Barret and Hayes can be voices of reason rather than the inmates running the asylum.

Hi Jason,

No need to repeat many of the disagreements I've had with you on this topic. I think you and I had a good exchange several months ago on this same topic.

You and the E-R were making the same accusations about the current Planning Commission within a few months after new Commissioners were appointed.

It only took a few meetings until the attacks already started about a "broken planning process." The new Commissioners barely had time to even warm up their seats before accusations were made that they were out of control.

This argument would have been much more credible if it wasn't made immediately after the new appointees had only attended a few meetings, including blaming them for low staff morale that existed prior to the appointments.

By the way, when I was a Councilor, I wanted a Planning Commission that thoroughly reviews projects with meticulous attention to details so when the project reaches the full Council, it has already been vetted with only major issues to resolve, if any, at the Council level.

You and I can respectfully disagree on the extent of certain behaviors and how the degree of those behaviors may have impacted other people's decisions.

Dan,
It’s very easy to discern between a commissioner who does their job and uses the General Plan to approve or deny a project, however, and YES from the very beginning this PC (who I remind you has members such as Luvvass that continued on from the previous PC) was obviously using their personal agendas and pet ideas as reason to approve, change or deny projects. Dan, you got to stop making these blanketed statements, get to town and watch some of these meetings live. They are a waste of time for everyone including the public.