Bullfight

Dan--

If the referendum fails to qualify (which I agree that it probably will not), my current nose-count does not predict that the council will narrow the scope of the ordinance. I think Scott Gruendl probably has his heart in the right place to want to exempt demonstrations, rallies, and other overtly political expression from this ordinance, but I don't think he can muster the votes on the council. I think there are four solid votes (at least; perhaps six) against a rewording, and Scott is usually pretty adept at not moving what will not pass (as contrasted to Larry Wahl, who's made lost causes a first principle).

Frankly, this whole referendum movement seems to be a case of poor sportsmanship. Yeah, a "significant number of people felt compelled" to sign the petition, but as we've seen over the years, a significant number of people in Chico would sign a petition to repeal the law of gravity. The fact is that the ordinance is not particularly onerous, and while there's always potential for abuse when law enforcement enjoys the privilege of prior restraint, the Chico PD has demonstrated an all-too-indulgent inclination when dealing with our exuberant youth culture. The opposition failed to persuade an inarguably liberal council that the ordinance was unsound, and when the vote went against them they staged the political equivalent of a temper tantrum. I'm given to understand that councilmembers' homes were vandalized in the wake of that vote, as well. So I doubt very seriously that many of them will want to cave to an obnoxious minority, which is uncharacteristic of this body, and an encouraging development. One hopes this same resolve will sustain other recent decisions that have met with some unpopularity among their historical supporter base (Sycamore Glen, extended parking enforcement, etc.)

In any event, I am resolutely opposed to ballot box legislation. We have a representative republic with a complex set of checks and balances precisely because a majority of voters can be stampeded by fear, greed, or mass hysteria. Not that legislatures are immune to those same inducements, of course, but direct democracy in a media-manipulated society can only produce a "tyranny of the majority". I always vote against any proposition that finds its way onto the ballot through the petition process, on the sound principle that I can hear axes being ground and necks being shaved.

--Ax

Alan,

I think you dismiss the referendum process too much. I believe it's quite challenging to gather over 4,000 signatures within 30 days with a volunteer group.

You try gathering over 4,000 signatures for anything within a 30 day period. It's not easy even if there is a compelling cause.

If you've ever tried to gather signatures, like I have in past campaigns, you know most people have an aversion to signing anything. Most people avoid signature gatherers like the plague.

Of course, it's much easier to gather signatures if you have financial backers willing to pay signature gatherers. I usually dismiss efforts involving paid volunteers and I'm sure the Chico Citizens for Civil Rights group did not pay anyone.

As an example of the challenges of signature gathering, given the hoopla over Bidwell Ranch when the property was finally rezoned for open space, I was surprised that proponents of development (or the "let the voters decide" interests) did not even attempt a referendum. It didn't happen for several reasons: (1) gathering sufficient signatures takes a lot of time and effort and (2) an election would likely result in defeat of the referendum.

Bottom line: When over 4,000 signatures are submitted by volunteers, I take that message seriously. But the question remains, what does the City Council do whether the referendum qualifies or not?

separate yet similar subject... The ole Penn & Teller petition signing video is a hoot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Dan, you wrote to Alan:
"I think you dismiss the referendum process too much."
It reminds me of another similar quote that I'll apply to the anti-ordinace crowd: "Methinks [they] doth protest too much"

Dan, as far as this ordinance debate, I think you may be a little over-enamoured with the whole protest process. As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm frustrated by that lack of criticism of the anti-ordinance groups and the ridiculous public statements they have made. I agree with Alan when he says:
"The fact is that the ordinance is not particularly onerous, and while there's always potential for abuse when law enforcement enjoys the privilege of prior restraint, the Chico PD has demonstrated an all-too-indulgent inclination when dealing with our exuberant youth culture."
My reading of the ordinance shows an attempt to downgrade an existing power of the police (To declare an unlawful assembly when certain factors are present) from a misdemeanor violation to an infraction, thus allowing a lower level of enforcement (citation vs arrest) as a means of dealing with out-of-control parties.
However, if you consider the arguments of the folks opposing the ordinance, almost every ammendment in the Bill of Rights is in jeopardy. Yet this hyperbole goes unchallenged by people who should and do know better. I'll put you in that group. Unfortunately, you seem to be to busy gushing over the fact that the "people are rising up to resist the Man" or some such nonsense. I know you're smarter than that.

Rainman,

I think you've mischaracterized my comments on this topic.

I don't consider writing about a referendum process "gushing." I guess your definition of gushing differs from mine.

If I was "gushing," I would be writing about how it's great these volunteers gathered enough signatures to potentially force the City Council to consider rescinding their apparently unconstitutional policy.

Instead, I commented about how it's quite challenging to actually gather 4,000 signatures for any local issue. This is hardly "gushing" in my estimation, but you can inject your own hyperbolic interpretation if you prefer.

Given your views on protest and activism, I can understand why you might be critical of the referendum process. The referendum process, in theory, is a means of protest against the powers that be (the majority elected body).

If making this observation means I'm gushing, then I'm guilty.

Mark,

Hilarious video!

After I watched the video, I got thirsty for dihydrogen monoxide.

On a slightly more serious note, while it's easy to get a tens if not hundreds of people to sign a petition banning water or repealing the "laws of gravity," as Alan noted, I still contend that it's quite challenging to gather more than 4,000 local, verifiable signatures for any issue within a 30 day period - whether for a seemingly ridiculous or substantive issue.

Dan--

You write "it's quite challenging to gather more than 4,000 local, verifiable signatures for any issue within a 30 day period".

Well, it's easier if you lie about the proposed initiative, of course.

But however arduous the process may be, 4000 signatures that are not qualified (i.e., do they know what they are really signing, was the issue presented honestly, do they really care about the issue or just expressing solidarity with their cohort, etc.) are essentially meaningless as a barometer of the public will. Whether signature-gatherers are paid or unpaid is irrelevant; the underlying assumptions informing the process are corrupt at the outset.

A majority of the electorate seated a panel of councilmembers and entrusted them with their money, their safety, and their well-being. As a body, they deliberated for months about the need for, and the specifics of, a mechanism that would improve public safety and reduce the potential for mayhem. I'm not arguing that the ordinance nor the process animating it are perfect, only that we agree as a society to delegate our consent to public servants who take the time to really understand the complexity and consequences of proposed public policy. We, as citizens, have ample opportunity to try to influence these public servants. We show up and testify at meetings, we write letters or emails, we lobby by phone or in person to persuade them.

And sometimes we fail to do so. Sometimes we really aren't as well-informed or don't exercise the same degree of probity and judgment. Sometimes we act in self-interest at the expense of the public good; we're only human. And when we fail, we go back to the drawing board, develop a new strategy, marshall support, and take another run at it from a different angle. And sometimes we take our wormwood, go to bed, and learn to live with disappointment.

I've certainly enjoyed far less success than failure in negotiating the public policy deliberation, and maybe that will change, or maybe I'll give up. But I think staging a referendum drive because you couldn't persuade the council that you have a constitutional right to party 'til you puke is just childish.

Frankly, it annoys the hell out of me that this ordinance is even necessary. There are, for example, a large number of motorcycle enthusiasts in the region. My experience with this community is that they enjoy a good party as much, and probably more, than your typical frat house. How much time does the enforcement community spend dealing with biker parties? Approximately none. And you know why? Because they police themselves. If the student population at Chico State were to develop some semblance of group responsibility, and set and uphold some minimum behavioral standards, instead of indulging an "it ain't illegal if you don't get caught" mentality, we wouldn't be wasting so much time and money on what properly should be called a "Babysitting Ordinance".

--Ax

Good Day,

Thanks for the interesting thread. If no one minds, I’ll add a few thoughts…

Allan submits that, petition “signers” don’t really understand or think about what they are signing. I’ll agree. I’ve circulated (unpaid) enough petitions to gauge the level of scrutiny people bestow on petitions. I’m reminded however that petition language can only be described as ---indecipherable legal mumbo jumbo. The Penn and Teller video was a great example of that and the comedian in me has been tempted to start a fake petition to end women’s suffrage.

However, after agreeing with Allan, I will take umbrage at his argument that elected representatives are a better outcome and mechanism for representing the general interest. I believe voters know “almost” as little about the candidates they vote for as the petitions they sign. When they average voter is deciding which candidate to vote for, he/she is typically affected by prescribed political values including issue position (ie. the War) and political party affiliation. Moreover, people vote for candidates they perceive as trustworthy. Wally Herger is a nice guy therefore I can trust him. I guess we could argue the good of that outcome. People evaluate the petition and the politician in much the same way. If this is true, the outcome of any election has no greater value than the outcome of a petition drive.
I would submit that while our system has its corruptions, it’s less corrupt than flawed. There are too many issues, candidates, offices at every level for people to know and understand and be informed of.

I think people are basically good and moved to action by what they perceive as promoting (via petition signing or voting) the general good. They take there best shot in a flawed system.

One of my favorites-
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Churchhill 1947)

Bob

Hello,
I am a 56 year-old grandmother who believes that all laws are to be obeyed, am against drugs, and have an impeccable record. When the Ordinance passed, I worked day and night for three weeks collecting referendum signatures...800 from all age groups and areas of Chico. The stress of prolonged exposure to the cold weather and physical exertion precipitated illness that lasted three weeks.
Benn, we never had a chance to chat much or get to know each other as we were too dang busy gathering signatures. I feel honored to have shared camaraderie with a person of your integrity. I never met Jessica Allen, Justin, or you prior to the night the Disorderly Events Ordinance was passed. All of us met that night at the end of Council Meeting.
The Disorderly Events Ordinance jeopardizes future Civil Rights. This is not something to be taken lightly. Rising crime rates in general and three incidents...the 20 yr. old riot, a handful of lawbreakers on a fire truck, and a bottle thrown at police… were used to kindle the Ordinance. Period. By the way, many Fireman signed the referendum. They said it was “just bull-shit”.
The Second Response Ordinance works, but only when it is enforced. I encountered many citizens during my petitioning who said the Police do not respond to disturbance calls , and one woman was afraid to even call for fear of neighbor retaliation. She had two small twin girls. Shame on the Police!!!!! I live in a mixed College area in The Avenues and the Police have always responded. They have never had to come out twice because I do not bluff. I tell the party crowd once; the second time I let them know that the Police are on the way and that if they come out a second time, they will be fined. This also gives them warning of pending arrest if illegal activities are occurring. There was never a second time because the Police did show up, just like I said. If people want to continue breaking those laws, they better police themselves and not cross over the line into others right to safety and peaceful enjoyment of their property.
This Ordinance is a shameful curtain proclaimed to have the purpose of handling out-of-control crowds. Police Capt. Mike Maloney sat next to me at a Council meeting. We discussed Pioneer Days/Riot, and I asked him if problems had progressively led up to the riot. He shook his head and indicated that it was spontaneous. Our Police Department was misappropriated for IMAGE BUILDING by both Chico State University and Chico City Council and they are continuing to do so now. They had no business shutting down lawful gatherings then, and they have no business doing so now.
Chico Police Dept. is being made a fool of by lawbreakers; specifically: underage drinkers and drug users. They are overwhelming law enforcers by sheer numbers and manipulating existing laws. That is the issue which needs to be addressed, and handled with Legal impingement. Notice that I said LEGAL. We have the laws in place, they just need to be enforced. I managed to legally handle lawbreakers who were violating my rights, in spite of Chico Police facilitating those lawbreakers.
After Chico Police allowed a neighbor to get by with his Pitbull attacking and injuring my pet inside my house, with only a fine of Dog Running at Large, he and about a dozen of his steroid white bully boy friends attempted to intimidate and overwhelm me in numbers by piling out of their vehicles with unleashed dogs, many of them Bully Breeds. That lasted two days.
I wrote a letter to his property owner (his Dad, no less) advising I had bought a .38 revolver, would be taking possession of it in 10 days, and if another dog attacked me or my pet on my property, I would exercise my legal right to protect myself and property. I then began taking pictures of the vehicles and license plates of his friends. They cleared out fast and that is the last I have seen of unleashed dogs and belligerent underage drinkers.
The kid had already gotten by with a lesser fine a year prior to this incident. He was arrested for drunk driveling, but only charged with underage drinking. What these incidents have in common is both times this kid was endangering life and property, then got the lesser fine. What made my actions effective is his transgressions would result in greater consequences to himself than to me…and it was legal…and just…and it worked.

Ann