Dog's Breakfast

I've taken a little time off from blogging since the election, but I'm over it, and ready to take up the cursor and observe the scene, local and otherwise.

Today's editorial rehearses many of the popular complaints about the new City Plaza, and some of them merit thoughtful consideration. But one remark really should be addressed:

And there are those back-in parking spaces. We don't get it. How do you let the driver behind you know what you're up to?

Now, I'm no fan of back-in parking, frankly, and there's a legitimate argument to be made against it, but this is not it. You let the driver behind you know what you're up to the same way you do with parallel parking; use your turn signals, and put the car in reverse. This will no doubt annoy the driver behind you, just as it does with parallel parking, but parallel parking is what we had there before, so I don't see this as a net loss, even on a busy street.

And that's the fulfrum of my argument against the practice; it introduces latency on the street segment, since the person parking is not going to wait until traffic clears before coming to a stop. The motorist sees the empty space, signals, stops, and parks. This is the proximate cause of much of the congestion that occurs in downtown. It's not that the streets are not wide enough, it's that the 30 seconds needed to parallel (or back-in diagonal) park a car can cause all the vehicles following to compact, attempt to negotiate lane changes, etc., and this repercusses on up the street. Hang around on Second Steet between Main and Broadway at lunchtime pretty much any weekday and you'll see this dynamic in action. Throw in a couple of knuckleheads trying to make a left turn at either end of the block, and we're close to absolute gridlock. Back-in parking introduces the same latency, but with twice as many parking places in play.

The advantage of diagonal parking at the Plaza is that most people are less adept at parallel parking on the left-hand side of the street. The advantage offered most often for back-in diagonal parking is that it make it easier for the departing motorist to see oncoming traffic, particularly cyclists, and makes the entry into the trafficway simplicity itself. These are valid arguments, and they obviously carried the day when the project was planned.

So the complaint that the editorial board of the ER doesn't "get it" betrays rather a diminished power of analysis on the part of the editorial board than it does on the traffic engineers who designed the parking.

Like traffic circles, the back-in parking will take some getting used to. But I am confident that even the editorial board of the ER will eventually figure it out.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I've spent a few hours today analyzing absentee voter behavior over the past three elections. I've uncovered some interesting trends.

First off, election night totals include all the absentee ballots that were mailed in. In recent elections, they have comprised roughly 20% of each candidate's vote total on election night.

What is interesting are two factors I've found to be remarkably consistent. The first is that candidates that most would label "liberal" ultimately derive about 33% of their final vote total from absentees, whereas those most would label as "conservative" typically derive around 45% from absentees. The second factor is that the absentee ballots liberals receive are roughly 50% mailed in, with the remaining 50% submitted on election day. Conservative candidates receive roughly 35% of their absentee ballots by mail, with the balance turned in at the precinct polling stations.

The upshot is that while all candidates get a bump from the late absentees, conservatives have historically enjoyed a bigger bump.

Applying the math, I have calculated what the vote totals would have to be in order to sustain that trend. According to my projections, the final ranking for the Chico City Council will be Flynn, Sorensen, Gruendl, Herbert, Nickell, Dailey.

In the Supervisor race, the factors are less clear. In the last election Maureen Kirk stood for, her absentee total was only 25% of her final total. If her election night total was 20% absentee, her bump would be around 436 votes, or a total of 6089.

The last time Steve Bertagna stood for office, his absentee votes were 44.2 percent of his total. If he got a 20% mail-in absentee on Tuesday, and the trend remains valid, his bump should be over 2700. This could be problematic, inasmuch as there are only 2662 uncounted absentee ballots in the Third District. It's more likely that the county absentee voting trends are different from city precincts, but there's still a chance that Bertagna could ultimately prevail. He and Kirk are only about 250 votes apart, and with 2662 in play, there's a lot of room for movement. Unfortunately, there's no useful absentee data available on the clerk-recorder's website from the primary last June.

But I digress. If recent trends are sustainable, the ultimate outcome in the city council race could see Sorensen not only leapfrogging Nickell, but Gruendl as well. If this happens, Herbert comes within about 500 votes of third place. If his unexpectedly poor showing on election night was a result of a higher than usual late absentee vote, it could be very close indeed.

Wishful thinking? Perhaps. The old sayijng about lies, damned lies, and statistics may obtain here. But look on the bright side; if I'm totally off base, you can slag me silly when the official Statement of Vote is published. Check back after Turkey Day and we'll see.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 09:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

It was asked in another forum if the Hooker Oak Alliance has a plan for the future. I can't speak for the entire organization, although I find myself increasingly in that role. But I feel confident my fellows would agree that we do.

I would qualify that by saying that there is a plan to develop a plan for the future. We've accomplished a great deal in the last year or so, and clearly there is much more to do going forward.

The good news is that the campaign for '08 begins today, and we have two years to make progress. We need to broaden our base of support, both in terms of wider perspective and in terms of financial contributions. We need a lot more $25 donors, for one thing, and I think we need to get more input on priorities from the tradesman, the merchant, and the other small business owners who are the backbone of our economy. We've presumed to represent their interests, and if we've failed, it is in not encouraging more involvement from them in both the ideological and economic domains.

But we have a strong, durable organization with committed people willing to roll up their sleeves and put in the hours to get things accomplished. We're learning how to conduct a political campaign OJT, and perhaps that's not the fastest or most efficient way to develop that expertise, but it's like picking up a cat by the tail; some lessons can only be learned in one way (but hopefully, only once). We got a lot of scratches on our arms last night, and I think we're substantially wiser than we were even 48 hours ago.

But regardless of how we approach seating policy makers in future elections, we will continue to contribute to the deliberation. We're going to continue to attend public meetings, speak up for our priorities, and challenge the council and the commissions to consider all Chico stakeholders when making critical decisions. We will make a difference, albeit a more incremental and less dramatic one than we might have with a new majority.

The future is determined by the people who show up. Clearly our colleagues in the opposition showed up last night. We will continue to do so, as well. However disappointed we may be at the final tally (and that is still a moving target), we expect to work with the new council, and we expect them to work with us. We are the citizens whose interests they are privileged to serve, and as we've learned over the years, the people who appear before the council and give testimony have a significant influence on the debate. We may be on the other side of the podium, but we will continue to be a voice for positive change in city government.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 02:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This has been one of the best local election seasons in recent memory. Despite some last-minute, uh, confusion about a mailer and a Mayor, the campaign rhetoric has been clean. Tough, yes, and pointedly focused on issues, which is as it should be.

But the field of candidates is of unprecedented quality, at both ends of the ideological spectrum. There were no joke candidates, no DNA, no Barbi Boeger, no knuckleheads. Whether you agree or disagree, each of the city council and county supervisor candidates is qualified, committed, and honorable. Whoever prevails, our local government will be in capable hands. Naturally, I have my preferences as to who is better suited, more closely aligned with my values, and likely to pursue policies I support, and so should you. So do yourself a favor, get your tush out of the Barcalounger, get it down to the polling place, and cast your vote.

And not because of the usual "if you don't vote you can't complain" nonsense. But because the campaign has been hard fought but fairly and respectfully. Reward these candidates with your attention and your participation, if only to encourage candidates in future races to follow suit. If turnout is typically low because people are alienated by caustic rhetoric and character attacks, then when the tone is mutually respectful, the turnout should go up. Help prove this hypothesis, and reap the rewards in future election seasons.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I've known, and have worked congenially, with Mayor Scott Gruendl on a variety of issues for the past eight years, since I first attended a press conference announcing his candidacy for the Assembly (he lost), on a platform of taxing electronic commerce. I disagreed with him then, and I continue to disagree with him on any number of issues, but I've always considered him a friend and colleague, and have praised his leadership when merited.

So you may imagine my dismay to discover that he went on the record alleging that the Hooker Oak Alliance was employing subliminal semiotics to attack him for being gay. At issue is a mailer the HOA sent out depicting a child on a gate posted "No Trespassing", illustrating how the city has locked away acres of "open space" that no one can use. The child only wanted to fly his kite, which was decorated with a rainbow motif.

The Mayor's allegation, if I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I do) is that the HOA deliberately chose the rainbow motif, since it is a symbol of Gay Pride, to send a veiled message that the HOA did not approve of him because of his sexual preference. Nothing could be more bizarre. His policy priorities are not aligned with ours, and that is the sole reason we endorsed other candidates.

For the record, I sit on the media committee that authored and ultimately green-lighted the mailer. It went through several iterations of editing, as we zeroed in on examples of wasteful spending, improvident and misguided investment, and unresponsiveness to the recreational needs of Chico residents. The photo was not discussed in terms of the rainbow aspect whatsoever. We thought it illustrated very clearly what we are objecting to regarding land use policy, particularly with respect to recreational opportunities. We thought the brightly colored kite offered a stark contrast to the otherwise drab scene. Hope, youthful exuberance, and a fun day in the sun and the wind, stamped out by a cold and colorless bureaucracy. Not that we thought about it in those terms; it just looked good.

The sad truth is that the Mayor seems to be more interested in decoding the symbolism of the colors on a kite than in addressing the specific concerns we raise in that mailer. I'm frankly disappointed that the Mayor would reach such an unsupportable conclusion about our message, but even more disappointed that he is using it to avoid addressing the real issues confronting struggling local business and hard-working families (including non-traditional families).

And I'm also candidly puzzled about it. Over the past few years, I have been promoting a proposal to form a citizens advisory commission with a comprehensive portfolio to study and recommend policy on a wide range of transportation issues. Scott Gruendl and Dan Nguyen-Tan (then on the council) helped me to advance the idea, which was eventually back-burnered by the Internal Affairs Committee on the recommendation of then Planning Director Kim Seidler. Now that Seidler is retired, I fully intend to try to revive the proposal.

But Scott and Dan were instrumental in getting it before the council, and in consulting with city staff about it. The funny thing about it is this; the very first time I discussed the idea with Scott, it was at a Gay Pride celebration at the Elks lodge picnic grounds a few years ago. I didn't go there to "work the room"; I went because I like a good party, and I knew I'd find cold beer, good friends, and loud music. He knows very well that I am not homophobic; indeed I am a vocal advocate of full extension of rights to gay people, including the right to marry.

For him to conclude that there is a homophobic agenda in our messaging is simply absurd thinking. Paranoia is a disorder. Perhaps the stress of campaigning on issues instead of innuendo is starting to take its toll, but I hope my friend and colleague gets appropriate care to manage his anxieties. We at the HOA have known all along that negative campaigning does not work. Scott has had ample experience to learn the same thing, but somehow the lesson eludes him. It has been said that insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting different results. I don't think Scott is insane, but I do have to say that this episode is not a persuasive example of sound judgment.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, I had always expected Scott to be re-elected, along with Dan Herbert. One very good reason we would never consider attacking Scott is because he was very likely to get a second term, and we want to be able to work with all the council members, not just those we endorse. We're going to be around for a long time, and we're going to be actively involved in legislative advocacy. Insulting the very people we will need to collaborate with in the future makes no sense. (As I advised Scott in 2000, when he was calling Larry Wahl a crook -- Scott lost, incidentally, by fewer than 100 votes -- "how do you expect to govern with people you've spent the entire campaign accusing of corruption?") Incumbents enjoy a huge advantage, Scott and Dan have both demonstrated effective leadership, and neither has been vulnerable on missteps.

Until now. I've always considered politics primarily a sporting proposition, but now I'll have to scramble to cover some positions, because I think Scott may well have just snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (23)

Teacher: Johnny, describe the people of New York City.

Johnny: The people of New York are really stupid.

Teacher: Why do you say that?

Johnny: It says right in the textbook "the population of New York is very dense."

Back when I was a young hacker, there was a term for getting someone to give up their password by impersonating a system administrator: "social engineering". This was probably the easiest way to obtain privileges on a target host. You'd call up someone who had an account on the machine, tell them you were calling from the information systems department, and that you needed to fix some directory pointers or some such obscure jargon, and needed their password in order to change permissions on their files. It's astonishing how many people would give it up.

Today, that term has taken a new meaning, although it still amounts to tricking people into doing something they would not otherwise do. Similarly, the phrase "smart growth" is starting to morph into a fairly meaningless code, which is unfortunate, since it was, at one time, a term of art for a specific set of strategies for urban planning.

Instead is has become something of a slogan for what properly would be termed "no growth". The truth is that a lot of development in and around Chico has been exemplary of smart growth principles. Doe Mill is the poster child for smart growth strategies, although the development has been principally characterized as "New Urbanism", which movement has its own charter and design philosophy, incorporating elements of the Smart Growth principles with architectural and design imperatives. This is also described as "Traditional Neighborhood Development", which has its own portfolio of planning principles.

The General Plan largely dictates that development observe many of the conventions of the Smart Growth movement, so it's puzzling to me to hear candidates promoting it as something new, as a change in practice. What they are really talking about is not Smart Growth, at least as it is defined by the leaders of the movement. Instead, what they seem to mean is to use policy to compel changes in the way people live.

Yogi Berra famously observed that if people don't want to go to the ball game, you can't stop them. Prohibitive policy intended to force people onto public transit, e.g, results not in increased ridership, but rather with motorists choosing alternative destinations where motoring is better supported. The suggestion that suppressing the development of parking resources in downtown will cause more people to take the bus or ride their bikes results in more people choosing to patronize other commercial centers that provide ample parking. This isn't "smart growth" by any definition; it's a recipe for a deteriorating city center.

Smart Growth states, as a core principle, to "Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices", to

implement new approaches to transportation planning, such as better coordinating land use and transportation; increasing the availability of high quality transit service; creating redundancy, resiliency and connectivity within their road networks; and ensuring connectivity between pedestrian, bike, transit, and road facilities. In short, they are coupling a multi-modal approach to transportation with supportive development patterns, to create a variety of transportation options.

Obstructing access to motorists is not a strategy consistent with Smart Growth.

The truth is that Chico is as fully invested in public transit as it can be, given current funding limitations. The network of bike lanes and other resources for cyclists is extensive, and has been favorably recognized by the cycling press. More can be done, and should be done, to support those who choose self-propelled transportation, but refusing to provide parking is not the way to do it. Indeed, parking structures on the periphery of the downtown would promote a "park once" behavior, as contrasted to how many people behave now, which is to park serially, driving from one destination in downtown to another, and so forth. The "park once" approach results in people walking more, and a net reduction in traffic congestion. This is not "social engineering"; it's civil engineering.

If we consider downtown Chico to be a microcosm of the large community and region, we should consider carefully how it is to grow. Remaining as it is, like a fly in amber, is not an option. It must either grow, or stagnate. If it is to grow, then much can be learned by studying Smart Growth and the suite of best practices that have emerged from this discipline, rather than using it as a slogan for No-Growth policies.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)