Commentary: Who is Saylor to Lecture US on Civility in Public Discourse?

As I read Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor’s treatise in the Davis Enterprise Sunday on civility in public discourse, the first thought running through my head is who is Don Saylor to be lecturing to the community on civility. This is a man with a widespread reputation in this community for treating people in a very non-civil manner. He has berated many individuals in front of others when he has had disagreements with them. Moreover, in public discourse Mr. Saylor often gets away with making very malicious, cynical, and critical statements of others due to the measured way in which he speaks.

In February during the course of a discussion on the Cannery Park proposal Saylor spoke from prepared text to suggest:

“I want to make one small observation, in our council ground rules, under the first paragraph, it says that each councilmember should treat each other with respect and dignity even when disagreements arise. I feel disrespected and treated without dignity when my motivations are questioned and it is assumed that I am leading to something that I have not said.”

The irony is that while his opponents on the council were suggesting the council majority had ulterior motives for their proposal–to eventually develop the Covell Village project–their criticism was not directed at any individual and the tone was very civil.

Nevertheless, since that point Councilmember Saylor has taken on an increasingly rigid tone toward adhering to already overly rigid rules for council discourse. Rules that have likely contributed to the overly formalized style of discourse and that seek to prevent discussion and debate between the members.

The measured outburst in February was nothing new for Saylor, in fact, it was the latest in a long string of carefully phrased statements that sound reasonable in tone but in words and in meaning portray at times biting criticism.

During a discussion on living wage that Councilmember Lamar Heystek had been encouraged (by his council colleagues) to bring forward as an item written by a councilmember.

When Councilmember Heystek did so several months later, Councilmember Saylor accused Heystek of playing politics.

“There’s just a number of questions about this. To bring it up as a discussion is appropriate. To bring it up as a full-blown ordinance for a first reading, that’s not talking about policy, that’s talking about politics in a lead-up to an election.”

Remember this was after Councilmember Souza specifically encouraged Councilmember Heystek to bring forward this item as an item by a councilmember.

Councilmember Saylor also complains that certain actions by the public have produced a “a chilling effect on the practice of community.”

As the result of this, he argues,

“Many residents have told me they no longer feel they can “safely” participate in public discourse; they are reluctant to write a letter or speak in public for fear of vilification.”

In fact, it has often been the actions of city council members that have produced this kind of atmosphere. Councilmember Saylor and his colleagues are as guilty of that as anyone.

Last spring, the ASUCD Senate passed a resolution in support of the creation of a civilian police review board. Rob Roy, a UC Davis student and also a candidate for the city council, presented the resolution to the city council during public comment. Saylor then proceeded to accuse him of presenting a distorted account of events and calling this manipulation “cynical,” “malicious,” and most likely “politically motived.”

In April 2006, Councilmember Saylor delivered a long monologue to the community in response to the dismissal of the charges against the 16 year old accused of a hit-and-run. At one point he basically called this family a liar from the dais, suggesting that descriptions of the interactions between the police and the family had been “misrepresented to the point of comic book caricature.” The ensuing public response by the police, the district attorney’s office, and the city council where the then-Mayor Ruth Asmundson, a close ally of Saylor, apologized to Davis Police Officer Pheng Ly and later suggested that the minor had “learned her lesson” had a chilling effect on the willingness of individuals to come forward with complaints against the police department, for fear of the type of disrespect and ridicule that Saylor now accuses others of.

In fact, that whole episode was marked by incivility on the part of Mr. Saylor’s colleagues. At one point after the Human Relations Commission had presented their report on the police complaints, Councilmember Ted Puntillo, a strong ally of Saylor, remarked that the report was “not worth the paper it is written on.” During public comment in February, Ruth Asmundson tried to silence a UC Davis administrator in charge of minority student retention derisively claiming “we’re not listening.”

There was also the over-the-top political attack upon then candidate Lamar Heystek last spring, officially penned by Mr. Saylor’s wife at Mr. Saylor’s behest or approval. Julie Saylor accused Heystek of among other things sexism and misogyny based strictly upon a tongue-in-cheek column he penned for the California Aggie.

Mrs. Saylor concluded her attack by suggesting that Mr. Heystek should not be considered a viable candidate for council:

“I recommend that Lamar Heystek get a decade or two distant from his Aggie column before anyone consider him a viable candidate for council. This is not a comment about chronological age. We need to choose candidates with the emotional maturity, balance, perspective and experience to serve our whole community.”

The irony of course for many observers is that Mr. Heystek is likely the most congenial and often the most mature and respectful member on the council, addressing his colleagues by their formal titles, disagreeing with his colleagues without being disagreeable. In short, in his brief time on the council, it is Mr. Heystek and not Mr. Saylor who embodies the ideal of civility that we ought to strive to be as a community.

None of this even speaks to the numerous complaints of Saylor’s rude and bullying tactics with the public, city staffers, fellow councilmembers, commissioners, and other public dignitaries in front of others. I have heard first hand accounts of Mr. Saylor yelling and berating members in public, though no one wanted to go on the record with their accusations. However, I have heard numerous first and second hand accounts on the matter.

There was however a respected faculty member at UC Davis who served on a city commission. At Farmer’s Market he approached Mr. Saylor, they exchanged some pleasantries. Then as he tried to engage Mr. Saylor, Saylor turned to walk away. As he caught Mr. Saylor’s attention, Saylor rudely exclaimed, “are you still here?”

Councilmember Saylor wants to have a discussion on civility? He had better start with his own conduct at times, because his reputation on this matter is not a good one.

I have been concerned for a long time at the rigidity of council rules for discourse which require first a systematic period of questioning and then no discussion prior to a motion. That means that there cannot be a discussion on what the motion should be. That means that there cannot be a lot of give and take between the councilmembers. As I observe the city council, I note that it has a far more rigid discussion format than either the school board or the county board of supervisors. I also note that the city council likely has the most contentious relations between its membership. That is not to suggest that the school board members or the county supervisors are not in disagreement at times because they clearly are. However, the city council is much more hostile toward each other.

In recent weeks, Councilmember Saylor has been bringing up procedural points continually, but I think those points actually are producing more contention and animosity than would be the case if those issues were relaxed. Moreover, one of the biggest points of contention has to do with at what level discussion should take place–at the subcommittee level or in public. By placing important matters in subcommittee, you have largely taken the public out of the process.

From my discussions with members of the community, nearly everyone has been appalled by the audacity of Councilmember Saylor’s editorial. They believe that he is the last person to complain about incivility. And frankly, he has never jumped on one of his allies on the council when they treat the public uncivilly at meetings, he only uses it against his adversaries. This editorial and discourse by Mr. Saylor seems to use his language, cynical, mean-spirited, and likely politically motivated. I think most of the community can see through items such as this.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

244 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    Councilman Saylor’s concept of
    “Civility” is public discourse behind which one can conceal political intentions from the voters. His ponderous, seemingly endless yet unilluminating lectures in print and from the dais are of little importance;the voters of Davis are on to him.

  2. Anonymous

    Councilman Saylor’s concept of
    “Civility” is public discourse behind which one can conceal political intentions from the voters. His ponderous, seemingly endless yet unilluminating lectures in print and from the dais are of little importance;the voters of Davis are on to him.

  3. Anonymous

    Councilman Saylor’s concept of
    “Civility” is public discourse behind which one can conceal political intentions from the voters. His ponderous, seemingly endless yet unilluminating lectures in print and from the dais are of little importance;the voters of Davis are on to him.

  4. Anonymous

    Councilman Saylor’s concept of
    “Civility” is public discourse behind which one can conceal political intentions from the voters. His ponderous, seemingly endless yet unilluminating lectures in print and from the dais are of little importance;the voters of Davis are on to him.

  5. davisite

    We all have serious work to do in the Davis 2008 Council election. Every precinct needs to be walked and the voters engaged in serious discussion about Davis’ future. Will you be there?

  6. davisite

    We all have serious work to do in the Davis 2008 Council election. Every precinct needs to be walked and the voters engaged in serious discussion about Davis’ future. Will you be there?

  7. davisite

    We all have serious work to do in the Davis 2008 Council election. Every precinct needs to be walked and the voters engaged in serious discussion about Davis’ future. Will you be there?

  8. davisite

    We all have serious work to do in the Davis 2008 Council election. Every precinct needs to be walked and the voters engaged in serious discussion about Davis’ future. Will you be there?

  9. Anonymous

    Mrs. Saylor’s Enterprise letter to the editor text attacking councilman Heystek was reportedly almost identical to email text disseminated earlier by Councilman Saylor himself.

  10. Anonymous

    Mrs. Saylor’s Enterprise letter to the editor text attacking councilman Heystek was reportedly almost identical to email text disseminated earlier by Councilman Saylor himself.

  11. Anonymous

    Mrs. Saylor’s Enterprise letter to the editor text attacking councilman Heystek was reportedly almost identical to email text disseminated earlier by Councilman Saylor himself.

  12. Anonymous

    Mrs. Saylor’s Enterprise letter to the editor text attacking councilman Heystek was reportedly almost identical to email text disseminated earlier by Councilman Saylor himself.

  13. Anonymous

    I personally chose to not vote for a school board member or council member with the background of having worked for the California Youth Authority Administration, as was the case for council member Saylor. He worked for them and did so at a time when CYA was under a lot of heat. I called into question, and would still do so today, anyone who can bring themselves to work for such a DySfUnCtIoNaL organization.

  14. Anonymous

    I personally chose to not vote for a school board member or council member with the background of having worked for the California Youth Authority Administration, as was the case for council member Saylor. He worked for them and did so at a time when CYA was under a lot of heat. I called into question, and would still do so today, anyone who can bring themselves to work for such a DySfUnCtIoNaL organization.

  15. Anonymous

    I personally chose to not vote for a school board member or council member with the background of having worked for the California Youth Authority Administration, as was the case for council member Saylor. He worked for them and did so at a time when CYA was under a lot of heat. I called into question, and would still do so today, anyone who can bring themselves to work for such a DySfUnCtIoNaL organization.

  16. Anonymous

    I personally chose to not vote for a school board member or council member with the background of having worked for the California Youth Authority Administration, as was the case for council member Saylor. He worked for them and did so at a time when CYA was under a lot of heat. I called into question, and would still do so today, anyone who can bring themselves to work for such a DySfUnCtIoNaL organization.

  17. Anonymous

    You could find and replace “Don Saylor” in this article with “Sue Greenwald”, and it would still ring true.

    Davis would be better off finding a replacement for each, and getting on with some effective governance. Now is not the time for each camp to circle, it is the time for each camp to recognize that the City as a whole deserves new leadership on its poles.

  18. Anonymous

    You could find and replace “Don Saylor” in this article with “Sue Greenwald”, and it would still ring true.

    Davis would be better off finding a replacement for each, and getting on with some effective governance. Now is not the time for each camp to circle, it is the time for each camp to recognize that the City as a whole deserves new leadership on its poles.

  19. Anonymous

    You could find and replace “Don Saylor” in this article with “Sue Greenwald”, and it would still ring true.

    Davis would be better off finding a replacement for each, and getting on with some effective governance. Now is not the time for each camp to circle, it is the time for each camp to recognize that the City as a whole deserves new leadership on its poles.

  20. Anonymous

    You could find and replace “Don Saylor” in this article with “Sue Greenwald”, and it would still ring true.

    Davis would be better off finding a replacement for each, and getting on with some effective governance. Now is not the time for each camp to circle, it is the time for each camp to recognize that the City as a whole deserves new leadership on its poles.

  21. Anonymous

    The fundamental difference between Greenwald and Saylor is that mayor Greenwald has NEVER attempted to conceal her political positions or deceive the voters. Yes, she has her “flaws” but she can ge trusted.

  22. Anonymous

    The fundamental difference between Greenwald and Saylor is that mayor Greenwald has NEVER attempted to conceal her political positions or deceive the voters. Yes, she has her “flaws” but she can ge trusted.

  23. Anonymous

    The fundamental difference between Greenwald and Saylor is that mayor Greenwald has NEVER attempted to conceal her political positions or deceive the voters. Yes, she has her “flaws” but she can ge trusted.

  24. Anonymous

    The fundamental difference between Greenwald and Saylor is that mayor Greenwald has NEVER attempted to conceal her political positions or deceive the voters. Yes, she has her “flaws” but she can ge trusted.

  25. Rich Rifkin

    “You could find and replace “Don Saylor” in this article with “Sue Greenwald”, and it would still ring true.”

    What? Then this would not be a completely partisan hatchet job!

    The author is sadly blinded by his own partisanship.

    The truth is that all of the members of this council — save possibly Lamar, whose style is more gentlemanly — have at times been unfriendly toward other councilmembers or possibly toward members of the public.

    My belief is that this incivility or unfriendliness mostly stems from the fact that we have a mayor from the minority faction, whose personal public style (though I don’t find her this way in private) is abrasive and verbose. She is not the first mayor in Davis that we’ve had who met this criteria. The same problems were there when Suzy Boyd was the mayor. And there were probably others before when I was not paying attention.

    David Greenwald would never, of course, write a 1,000 word essay decrying and detailing how the mayor very often starts talking over her colleagues when they rightfully have the floor. But that is simply because David’s purpose here is to advance his agenda, not to shed light.

    Some of the fault also lies with the rules governing council meetings, where the members are not really allowed to have a free-flowing discussion with give-and-take. Sue Greenwald, who is a smart and insightful person, would benefit from that kind of structure, as she often has given a lot of thought to the longer-term ramifications of various ideas and policy choices. But, because the rules are not designed this way, Sue seems frustrated and constrained; and as a result, she is very unfriendly to her colleagues at times.

    The majority is not lacking in fault in their reaction to the mayor, either. That recent vote where they would not permit Sue to replace Lamar on the charter city/choice voting subcommittee was not just unfriendly, it was petty and ridiculous.

    It’s easy to say that the solution is to just vote for certain people because of their demeanors. But that would not solve the problem. I personally find all five members of the council, with me, to be exceedingly nice people.

    Rather, the solution should start with having the council as a body choosing who the mayor is. And it might help to relax the rules on occassion, so that councilmembers can have more of a colloquy and less of an obloquy.

  26. Rich Rifkin

    “You could find and replace “Don Saylor” in this article with “Sue Greenwald”, and it would still ring true.”

    What? Then this would not be a completely partisan hatchet job!

    The author is sadly blinded by his own partisanship.

    The truth is that all of the members of this council — save possibly Lamar, whose style is more gentlemanly — have at times been unfriendly toward other councilmembers or possibly toward members of the public.

    My belief is that this incivility or unfriendliness mostly stems from the fact that we have a mayor from the minority faction, whose personal public style (though I don’t find her this way in private) is abrasive and verbose. She is not the first mayor in Davis that we’ve had who met this criteria. The same problems were there when Suzy Boyd was the mayor. And there were probably others before when I was not paying attention.

    David Greenwald would never, of course, write a 1,000 word essay decrying and detailing how the mayor very often starts talking over her colleagues when they rightfully have the floor. But that is simply because David’s purpose here is to advance his agenda, not to shed light.

    Some of the fault also lies with the rules governing council meetings, where the members are not really allowed to have a free-flowing discussion with give-and-take. Sue Greenwald, who is a smart and insightful person, would benefit from that kind of structure, as she often has given a lot of thought to the longer-term ramifications of various ideas and policy choices. But, because the rules are not designed this way, Sue seems frustrated and constrained; and as a result, she is very unfriendly to her colleagues at times.

    The majority is not lacking in fault in their reaction to the mayor, either. That recent vote where they would not permit Sue to replace Lamar on the charter city/choice voting subcommittee was not just unfriendly, it was petty and ridiculous.

    It’s easy to say that the solution is to just vote for certain people because of their demeanors. But that would not solve the problem. I personally find all five members of the council, with me, to be exceedingly nice people.

    Rather, the solution should start with having the council as a body choosing who the mayor is. And it might help to relax the rules on occassion, so that councilmembers can have more of a colloquy and less of an obloquy.

  27. Rich Rifkin

    “You could find and replace “Don Saylor” in this article with “Sue Greenwald”, and it would still ring true.”

    What? Then this would not be a completely partisan hatchet job!

    The author is sadly blinded by his own partisanship.

    The truth is that all of the members of this council — save possibly Lamar, whose style is more gentlemanly — have at times been unfriendly toward other councilmembers or possibly toward members of the public.

    My belief is that this incivility or unfriendliness mostly stems from the fact that we have a mayor from the minority faction, whose personal public style (though I don’t find her this way in private) is abrasive and verbose. She is not the first mayor in Davis that we’ve had who met this criteria. The same problems were there when Suzy Boyd was the mayor. And there were probably others before when I was not paying attention.

    David Greenwald would never, of course, write a 1,000 word essay decrying and detailing how the mayor very often starts talking over her colleagues when they rightfully have the floor. But that is simply because David’s purpose here is to advance his agenda, not to shed light.

    Some of the fault also lies with the rules governing council meetings, where the members are not really allowed to have a free-flowing discussion with give-and-take. Sue Greenwald, who is a smart and insightful person, would benefit from that kind of structure, as she often has given a lot of thought to the longer-term ramifications of various ideas and policy choices. But, because the rules are not designed this way, Sue seems frustrated and constrained; and as a result, she is very unfriendly to her colleagues at times.

    The majority is not lacking in fault in their reaction to the mayor, either. That recent vote where they would not permit Sue to replace Lamar on the charter city/choice voting subcommittee was not just unfriendly, it was petty and ridiculous.

    It’s easy to say that the solution is to just vote for certain people because of their demeanors. But that would not solve the problem. I personally find all five members of the council, with me, to be exceedingly nice people.

    Rather, the solution should start with having the council as a body choosing who the mayor is. And it might help to relax the rules on occassion, so that councilmembers can have more of a colloquy and less of an obloquy.

  28. Rich Rifkin

    “You could find and replace “Don Saylor” in this article with “Sue Greenwald”, and it would still ring true.”

    What? Then this would not be a completely partisan hatchet job!

    The author is sadly blinded by his own partisanship.

    The truth is that all of the members of this council — save possibly Lamar, whose style is more gentlemanly — have at times been unfriendly toward other councilmembers or possibly toward members of the public.

    My belief is that this incivility or unfriendliness mostly stems from the fact that we have a mayor from the minority faction, whose personal public style (though I don’t find her this way in private) is abrasive and verbose. She is not the first mayor in Davis that we’ve had who met this criteria. The same problems were there when Suzy Boyd was the mayor. And there were probably others before when I was not paying attention.

    David Greenwald would never, of course, write a 1,000 word essay decrying and detailing how the mayor very often starts talking over her colleagues when they rightfully have the floor. But that is simply because David’s purpose here is to advance his agenda, not to shed light.

    Some of the fault also lies with the rules governing council meetings, where the members are not really allowed to have a free-flowing discussion with give-and-take. Sue Greenwald, who is a smart and insightful person, would benefit from that kind of structure, as she often has given a lot of thought to the longer-term ramifications of various ideas and policy choices. But, because the rules are not designed this way, Sue seems frustrated and constrained; and as a result, she is very unfriendly to her colleagues at times.

    The majority is not lacking in fault in their reaction to the mayor, either. That recent vote where they would not permit Sue to replace Lamar on the charter city/choice voting subcommittee was not just unfriendly, it was petty and ridiculous.

    It’s easy to say that the solution is to just vote for certain people because of their demeanors. But that would not solve the problem. I personally find all five members of the council, with me, to be exceedingly nice people.

    Rather, the solution should start with having the council as a body choosing who the mayor is. And it might help to relax the rules on occassion, so that councilmembers can have more of a colloquy and less of an obloquy.

  29. Anonymous

    Rich,

    This was not an article about Sue Greenwald. It was an article about Don Saylor.

    Doug has written articles about Sue Greenwald’s actions as mayor.

    Your efforts to minimize the message by minimizing the messenger, or deflecting attention away from the Don to another person that you state also has problems with civility, does not fly, especially when examples of what Doug writes about is so easily seen.

    I am willing to give Don a chance to practice what he writes about in his article on civility. Since he does seem to have an opinion on how things can be better, I’m looking forward to seeing how he puts these ideas into action.

  30. Anonymous

    Rich,

    This was not an article about Sue Greenwald. It was an article about Don Saylor.

    Doug has written articles about Sue Greenwald’s actions as mayor.

    Your efforts to minimize the message by minimizing the messenger, or deflecting attention away from the Don to another person that you state also has problems with civility, does not fly, especially when examples of what Doug writes about is so easily seen.

    I am willing to give Don a chance to practice what he writes about in his article on civility. Since he does seem to have an opinion on how things can be better, I’m looking forward to seeing how he puts these ideas into action.

  31. Anonymous

    Rich,

    This was not an article about Sue Greenwald. It was an article about Don Saylor.

    Doug has written articles about Sue Greenwald’s actions as mayor.

    Your efforts to minimize the message by minimizing the messenger, or deflecting attention away from the Don to another person that you state also has problems with civility, does not fly, especially when examples of what Doug writes about is so easily seen.

    I am willing to give Don a chance to practice what he writes about in his article on civility. Since he does seem to have an opinion on how things can be better, I’m looking forward to seeing how he puts these ideas into action.

  32. Anonymous

    Rich,

    This was not an article about Sue Greenwald. It was an article about Don Saylor.

    Doug has written articles about Sue Greenwald’s actions as mayor.

    Your efforts to minimize the message by minimizing the messenger, or deflecting attention away from the Don to another person that you state also has problems with civility, does not fly, especially when examples of what Doug writes about is so easily seen.

    I am willing to give Don a chance to practice what he writes about in his article on civility. Since he does seem to have an opinion on how things can be better, I’m looking forward to seeing how he puts these ideas into action.

  33. Richard

    Rich is missing the obvious point: Sue Greenwald has never had the audacity to lecture the citizens of Davis about “civility” in the Davis Enterprise while being a pretentious obnoxious boor, as Saylor did.

    Sue is very clear about her political perspective, and acts upon it. Poeple that agree with vote for it, those that don’t, don’t. She doesn’t participate in the absurdity of dealing with opposition by claiming that they lack civility in order to put through a developer friendly agenda.

    All in all, it’s comical. Politics, as I have said, is a contact sport. Or, to quote another, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. At the end of the day, Saylor’s lecture comes across as pathetic whining.

  34. Richard

    Rich is missing the obvious point: Sue Greenwald has never had the audacity to lecture the citizens of Davis about “civility” in the Davis Enterprise while being a pretentious obnoxious boor, as Saylor did.

    Sue is very clear about her political perspective, and acts upon it. Poeple that agree with vote for it, those that don’t, don’t. She doesn’t participate in the absurdity of dealing with opposition by claiming that they lack civility in order to put through a developer friendly agenda.

    All in all, it’s comical. Politics, as I have said, is a contact sport. Or, to quote another, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. At the end of the day, Saylor’s lecture comes across as pathetic whining.

  35. Richard

    Rich is missing the obvious point: Sue Greenwald has never had the audacity to lecture the citizens of Davis about “civility” in the Davis Enterprise while being a pretentious obnoxious boor, as Saylor did.

    Sue is very clear about her political perspective, and acts upon it. Poeple that agree with vote for it, those that don’t, don’t. She doesn’t participate in the absurdity of dealing with opposition by claiming that they lack civility in order to put through a developer friendly agenda.

    All in all, it’s comical. Politics, as I have said, is a contact sport. Or, to quote another, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. At the end of the day, Saylor’s lecture comes across as pathetic whining.

  36. Richard

    Rich is missing the obvious point: Sue Greenwald has never had the audacity to lecture the citizens of Davis about “civility” in the Davis Enterprise while being a pretentious obnoxious boor, as Saylor did.

    Sue is very clear about her political perspective, and acts upon it. Poeple that agree with vote for it, those that don’t, don’t. She doesn’t participate in the absurdity of dealing with opposition by claiming that they lack civility in order to put through a developer friendly agenda.

    All in all, it’s comical. Politics, as I have said, is a contact sport. Or, to quote another, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. At the end of the day, Saylor’s lecture comes across as pathetic whining.

  37. Anonymous

    Rich, Voting for “nice people” not always the right way to go.

    I think the community as a whole believed that the Covell Village developers were nice people. But that didn’t necessarily make the project nice.

    Also, people are often “nice” until they get a little power and authority over others. You never really know.

  38. Anonymous

    Rich, Voting for “nice people” not always the right way to go.

    I think the community as a whole believed that the Covell Village developers were nice people. But that didn’t necessarily make the project nice.

    Also, people are often “nice” until they get a little power and authority over others. You never really know.

  39. Anonymous

    Rich, Voting for “nice people” not always the right way to go.

    I think the community as a whole believed that the Covell Village developers were nice people. But that didn’t necessarily make the project nice.

    Also, people are often “nice” until they get a little power and authority over others. You never really know.

  40. Anonymous

    Rich, Voting for “nice people” not always the right way to go.

    I think the community as a whole believed that the Covell Village developers were nice people. But that didn’t necessarily make the project nice.

    Also, people are often “nice” until they get a little power and authority over others. You never really know.

  41. Rich Rifkin

    “This was not an article about Sue Greenwald. It was an article about Don Saylor.”

    If so, then why did the author make negative references to comments made from the dais by Ted Puntillo and Ruth Asmundson?

    Every example he picked out was to advance his partisan agenda. He just used the Saylor piece as a launching pad.

    “Rich is missing the obvious point: Sue Greenwald has never had the audacity to lecture the citizens of Davis about “civility” in the Davis Enterprise while being a pretentious obnoxious boor, as Saylor did.”

    I would not say that Sue Greenwald is a pretentious obnoxious boor. In fact, your implying that is rather uncivil.

  42. Rich Rifkin

    “This was not an article about Sue Greenwald. It was an article about Don Saylor.”

    If so, then why did the author make negative references to comments made from the dais by Ted Puntillo and Ruth Asmundson?

    Every example he picked out was to advance his partisan agenda. He just used the Saylor piece as a launching pad.

    “Rich is missing the obvious point: Sue Greenwald has never had the audacity to lecture the citizens of Davis about “civility” in the Davis Enterprise while being a pretentious obnoxious boor, as Saylor did.”

    I would not say that Sue Greenwald is a pretentious obnoxious boor. In fact, your implying that is rather uncivil.

  43. Rich Rifkin

    “This was not an article about Sue Greenwald. It was an article about Don Saylor.”

    If so, then why did the author make negative references to comments made from the dais by Ted Puntillo and Ruth Asmundson?

    Every example he picked out was to advance his partisan agenda. He just used the Saylor piece as a launching pad.

    “Rich is missing the obvious point: Sue Greenwald has never had the audacity to lecture the citizens of Davis about “civility” in the Davis Enterprise while being a pretentious obnoxious boor, as Saylor did.”

    I would not say that Sue Greenwald is a pretentious obnoxious boor. In fact, your implying that is rather uncivil.

  44. Rich Rifkin

    “This was not an article about Sue Greenwald. It was an article about Don Saylor.”

    If so, then why did the author make negative references to comments made from the dais by Ted Puntillo and Ruth Asmundson?

    Every example he picked out was to advance his partisan agenda. He just used the Saylor piece as a launching pad.

    “Rich is missing the obvious point: Sue Greenwald has never had the audacity to lecture the citizens of Davis about “civility” in the Davis Enterprise while being a pretentious obnoxious boor, as Saylor did.”

    I would not say that Sue Greenwald is a pretentious obnoxious boor. In fact, your implying that is rather uncivil.

  45. Anonymous

    Saylor’s pretentious call for civility in the face of a public record of arrogance , distain and outright political bullying can really do a number on a person’s blood pressure. He hopes that his sham call for civility will give him the “breathing room” to try and reinvent himself before his date with political doom in 2008

  46. Anonymous

    Saylor’s pretentious call for civility in the face of a public record of arrogance , distain and outright political bullying can really do a number on a person’s blood pressure. He hopes that his sham call for civility will give him the “breathing room” to try and reinvent himself before his date with political doom in 2008

  47. Anonymous

    Saylor’s pretentious call for civility in the face of a public record of arrogance , distain and outright political bullying can really do a number on a person’s blood pressure. He hopes that his sham call for civility will give him the “breathing room” to try and reinvent himself before his date with political doom in 2008

  48. Anonymous

    Saylor’s pretentious call for civility in the face of a public record of arrogance , distain and outright political bullying can really do a number on a person’s blood pressure. He hopes that his sham call for civility will give him the “breathing room” to try and reinvent himself before his date with political doom in 2008

  49. Don Shor

    “…council rules for discourse which require first a systematic period of questioning and then no discussion prior to a motion. That means that there cannot be a discussion on what the motion should be.”
    That would be, if I recall, how Roberts’ Rules works.

    Plus ca change, c’est la meme chose. Anyone remember Susie and Julie?

    I’d suggest that in the upcoming elections, the voters consider how effective a candidate is (or would be) in addition to their ideology.

  50. Don Shor

    “…council rules for discourse which require first a systematic period of questioning and then no discussion prior to a motion. That means that there cannot be a discussion on what the motion should be.”
    That would be, if I recall, how Roberts’ Rules works.

    Plus ca change, c’est la meme chose. Anyone remember Susie and Julie?

    I’d suggest that in the upcoming elections, the voters consider how effective a candidate is (or would be) in addition to their ideology.

  51. Don Shor

    “…council rules for discourse which require first a systematic period of questioning and then no discussion prior to a motion. That means that there cannot be a discussion on what the motion should be.”
    That would be, if I recall, how Roberts’ Rules works.

    Plus ca change, c’est la meme chose. Anyone remember Susie and Julie?

    I’d suggest that in the upcoming elections, the voters consider how effective a candidate is (or would be) in addition to their ideology.

  52. Don Shor

    “…council rules for discourse which require first a systematic period of questioning and then no discussion prior to a motion. That means that there cannot be a discussion on what the motion should be.”
    That would be, if I recall, how Roberts’ Rules works.

    Plus ca change, c’est la meme chose. Anyone remember Susie and Julie?

    I’d suggest that in the upcoming elections, the voters consider how effective a candidate is (or would be) in addition to their ideology.

  53. Anonymous

    “I would not say that Sue Greenwald is a pretentious obnoxious boor. In fact, your implying that is rather uncivil.”

    ….wrong reading of this statment. As I read it, the term pretentious obnoxious boor is describing Councilman Saylor. “Uncivil?” Vanguard posters calls ’em the way they sees “em!

  54. Anonymous

    “I would not say that Sue Greenwald is a pretentious obnoxious boor. In fact, your implying that is rather uncivil.”

    ….wrong reading of this statment. As I read it, the term pretentious obnoxious boor is describing Councilman Saylor. “Uncivil?” Vanguard posters calls ’em the way they sees “em!

  55. Anonymous

    “I would not say that Sue Greenwald is a pretentious obnoxious boor. In fact, your implying that is rather uncivil.”

    ….wrong reading of this statment. As I read it, the term pretentious obnoxious boor is describing Councilman Saylor. “Uncivil?” Vanguard posters calls ’em the way they sees “em!

  56. Anonymous

    “I would not say that Sue Greenwald is a pretentious obnoxious boor. In fact, your implying that is rather uncivil.”

    ….wrong reading of this statment. As I read it, the term pretentious obnoxious boor is describing Councilman Saylor. “Uncivil?” Vanguard posters calls ’em the way they sees “em!

  57. Rich Rifkin

    This editorial and discourse by Mr. Greenwald seems to use his language, cynical, mean-spirited, and likely politically motivated. I think most of the community can see through items such as this.

  58. Rich Rifkin

    This editorial and discourse by Mr. Greenwald seems to use his language, cynical, mean-spirited, and likely politically motivated. I think most of the community can see through items such as this.

  59. Rich Rifkin

    This editorial and discourse by Mr. Greenwald seems to use his language, cynical, mean-spirited, and likely politically motivated. I think most of the community can see through items such as this.

  60. Rich Rifkin

    This editorial and discourse by Mr. Greenwald seems to use his language, cynical, mean-spirited, and likely politically motivated. I think most of the community can see through items such as this.

  61. Vincente

    If that’s the case Rich, then why have you taken such care to refute it without actually questioning any of the facts at hand.

    Don: I do not recall either Julie or Susie being so stringent in their adherence to rules, the other bodies as I have seen them also relax their rules most of the time. In fact, Jim Provenza (School board) made it a specific point during a recent discussion to such a more formal ordering of the meeting which implied that that was not the usual.

  62. Vincente

    If that’s the case Rich, then why have you taken such care to refute it without actually questioning any of the facts at hand.

    Don: I do not recall either Julie or Susie being so stringent in their adherence to rules, the other bodies as I have seen them also relax their rules most of the time. In fact, Jim Provenza (School board) made it a specific point during a recent discussion to such a more formal ordering of the meeting which implied that that was not the usual.

  63. Vincente

    If that’s the case Rich, then why have you taken such care to refute it without actually questioning any of the facts at hand.

    Don: I do not recall either Julie or Susie being so stringent in their adherence to rules, the other bodies as I have seen them also relax their rules most of the time. In fact, Jim Provenza (School board) made it a specific point during a recent discussion to such a more formal ordering of the meeting which implied that that was not the usual.

  64. Vincente

    If that’s the case Rich, then why have you taken such care to refute it without actually questioning any of the facts at hand.

    Don: I do not recall either Julie or Susie being so stringent in their adherence to rules, the other bodies as I have seen them also relax their rules most of the time. In fact, Jim Provenza (School board) made it a specific point during a recent discussion to such a more formal ordering of the meeting which implied that that was not the usual.

  65. Lynn C.

    rich rifkin said: David Greenwald would never, of course, write a 1,000 word essay decrying and detailing how the mayor very often starts talking over her colleagues when they rightfully have the floor. But that is simply because David’s purpose here is to advance his agenda, not to shed light.

    Hunh. I must have missed Sue Greenwald’s Sunday op-ed that talked about civility in public discourse. Maybe that’s because she didn’t write one. Don’s sanctimonious op-ed piece (and I do mean piece) dripped with hypocrisy.

  66. Lynn C.

    rich rifkin said: David Greenwald would never, of course, write a 1,000 word essay decrying and detailing how the mayor very often starts talking over her colleagues when they rightfully have the floor. But that is simply because David’s purpose here is to advance his agenda, not to shed light.

    Hunh. I must have missed Sue Greenwald’s Sunday op-ed that talked about civility in public discourse. Maybe that’s because she didn’t write one. Don’s sanctimonious op-ed piece (and I do mean piece) dripped with hypocrisy.

  67. Lynn C.

    rich rifkin said: David Greenwald would never, of course, write a 1,000 word essay decrying and detailing how the mayor very often starts talking over her colleagues when they rightfully have the floor. But that is simply because David’s purpose here is to advance his agenda, not to shed light.

    Hunh. I must have missed Sue Greenwald’s Sunday op-ed that talked about civility in public discourse. Maybe that’s because she didn’t write one. Don’s sanctimonious op-ed piece (and I do mean piece) dripped with hypocrisy.

  68. Lynn C.

    rich rifkin said: David Greenwald would never, of course, write a 1,000 word essay decrying and detailing how the mayor very often starts talking over her colleagues when they rightfully have the floor. But that is simply because David’s purpose here is to advance his agenda, not to shed light.

    Hunh. I must have missed Sue Greenwald’s Sunday op-ed that talked about civility in public discourse. Maybe that’s because she didn’t write one. Don’s sanctimonious op-ed piece (and I do mean piece) dripped with hypocrisy.

  69. Anonymous

    I remember Don Saylor lecturing everyone on their behavior during a public hearing before abstaining with a long winded explanation on a resolution to get out of Iraq. It was patronizing of the crowd and embarrassing for Saylor. It was probably also painful for Casey Sheehan’s father and sister who spoke of their loss of a family member in Bush’s failed war when the whole crowd of anti-war activists were demeaned in that fashion.

    It seemed to me that he was telling the people who were exercising their democratic rights that they were rude to do so. I didn’t really see anybody being rude and didn’t understand where he was coming from. Then again at the California Youth authority when he was a high level administrator there were students attending classes in cages. Maybe that is the kind of environment in which he feels comfortable making decisions.

    Get over it Don people are going to speak out in this town and there isn’t anything you can do about it.

  70. Anonymous

    I remember Don Saylor lecturing everyone on their behavior during a public hearing before abstaining with a long winded explanation on a resolution to get out of Iraq. It was patronizing of the crowd and embarrassing for Saylor. It was probably also painful for Casey Sheehan’s father and sister who spoke of their loss of a family member in Bush’s failed war when the whole crowd of anti-war activists were demeaned in that fashion.

    It seemed to me that he was telling the people who were exercising their democratic rights that they were rude to do so. I didn’t really see anybody being rude and didn’t understand where he was coming from. Then again at the California Youth authority when he was a high level administrator there were students attending classes in cages. Maybe that is the kind of environment in which he feels comfortable making decisions.

    Get over it Don people are going to speak out in this town and there isn’t anything you can do about it.

  71. Anonymous

    I remember Don Saylor lecturing everyone on their behavior during a public hearing before abstaining with a long winded explanation on a resolution to get out of Iraq. It was patronizing of the crowd and embarrassing for Saylor. It was probably also painful for Casey Sheehan’s father and sister who spoke of their loss of a family member in Bush’s failed war when the whole crowd of anti-war activists were demeaned in that fashion.

    It seemed to me that he was telling the people who were exercising their democratic rights that they were rude to do so. I didn’t really see anybody being rude and didn’t understand where he was coming from. Then again at the California Youth authority when he was a high level administrator there were students attending classes in cages. Maybe that is the kind of environment in which he feels comfortable making decisions.

    Get over it Don people are going to speak out in this town and there isn’t anything you can do about it.

  72. Anonymous

    I remember Don Saylor lecturing everyone on their behavior during a public hearing before abstaining with a long winded explanation on a resolution to get out of Iraq. It was patronizing of the crowd and embarrassing for Saylor. It was probably also painful for Casey Sheehan’s father and sister who spoke of their loss of a family member in Bush’s failed war when the whole crowd of anti-war activists were demeaned in that fashion.

    It seemed to me that he was telling the people who were exercising their democratic rights that they were rude to do so. I didn’t really see anybody being rude and didn’t understand where he was coming from. Then again at the California Youth authority when he was a high level administrator there were students attending classes in cages. Maybe that is the kind of environment in which he feels comfortable making decisions.

    Get over it Don people are going to speak out in this town and there isn’t anything you can do about it.

  73. Anonymous

    Council member Saylor and council members Souza and Asmundson have lectured on:

    1) Resolution on the war on Iraq
    2) The renaming of Sutter prior to coming up with a solution that would not upset one of Saylor’s supporters (Sutter Admin folks)
    3) Bio-lab
    4) HRC and recommendations
    5) Planning Commission and recommendations
    6) And on, and on, and on…

    Council members Saylor along with Souza and Asmundson would better serve the community if they would listen and stop with their attempts to limit public input.

    The public is more intelligent than they think.

  74. Anonymous

    Council member Saylor and council members Souza and Asmundson have lectured on:

    1) Resolution on the war on Iraq
    2) The renaming of Sutter prior to coming up with a solution that would not upset one of Saylor’s supporters (Sutter Admin folks)
    3) Bio-lab
    4) HRC and recommendations
    5) Planning Commission and recommendations
    6) And on, and on, and on…

    Council members Saylor along with Souza and Asmundson would better serve the community if they would listen and stop with their attempts to limit public input.

    The public is more intelligent than they think.

  75. Anonymous

    Council member Saylor and council members Souza and Asmundson have lectured on:

    1) Resolution on the war on Iraq
    2) The renaming of Sutter prior to coming up with a solution that would not upset one of Saylor’s supporters (Sutter Admin folks)
    3) Bio-lab
    4) HRC and recommendations
    5) Planning Commission and recommendations
    6) And on, and on, and on…

    Council members Saylor along with Souza and Asmundson would better serve the community if they would listen and stop with their attempts to limit public input.

    The public is more intelligent than they think.

  76. Anonymous

    Council member Saylor and council members Souza and Asmundson have lectured on:

    1) Resolution on the war on Iraq
    2) The renaming of Sutter prior to coming up with a solution that would not upset one of Saylor’s supporters (Sutter Admin folks)
    3) Bio-lab
    4) HRC and recommendations
    5) Planning Commission and recommendations
    6) And on, and on, and on…

    Council members Saylor along with Souza and Asmundson would better serve the community if they would listen and stop with their attempts to limit public input.

    The public is more intelligent than they think.

  77. Anonymous

    And let us not forget how Asmundson, Saylor and Souza along with Ted Puntillo sanctimoniously lectured the community for two years about the merits of their beloved Covell Village Development Project.

    Many of us who questioned Covell Village’s urban sprawl, environmental and fiscal threats that would have surely degraded our community’s quality of life were arrogantly treated as subordinates to these “all knowing” elected officials. Asmundson, Saylor and Souza glossed over all those concerns and lectured the community on what their definition of proper behavior is: agreeing with them.

  78. Anonymous

    And let us not forget how Asmundson, Saylor and Souza along with Ted Puntillo sanctimoniously lectured the community for two years about the merits of their beloved Covell Village Development Project.

    Many of us who questioned Covell Village’s urban sprawl, environmental and fiscal threats that would have surely degraded our community’s quality of life were arrogantly treated as subordinates to these “all knowing” elected officials. Asmundson, Saylor and Souza glossed over all those concerns and lectured the community on what their definition of proper behavior is: agreeing with them.

  79. Anonymous

    And let us not forget how Asmundson, Saylor and Souza along with Ted Puntillo sanctimoniously lectured the community for two years about the merits of their beloved Covell Village Development Project.

    Many of us who questioned Covell Village’s urban sprawl, environmental and fiscal threats that would have surely degraded our community’s quality of life were arrogantly treated as subordinates to these “all knowing” elected officials. Asmundson, Saylor and Souza glossed over all those concerns and lectured the community on what their definition of proper behavior is: agreeing with them.

  80. Anonymous

    And let us not forget how Asmundson, Saylor and Souza along with Ted Puntillo sanctimoniously lectured the community for two years about the merits of their beloved Covell Village Development Project.

    Many of us who questioned Covell Village’s urban sprawl, environmental and fiscal threats that would have surely degraded our community’s quality of life were arrogantly treated as subordinates to these “all knowing” elected officials. Asmundson, Saylor and Souza glossed over all those concerns and lectured the community on what their definition of proper behavior is: agreeing with them.

  81. davisite

    “Rather, the solution should start with having the council as a body choosing who the mayor is…”

    With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.

  82. davisite

    “Rather, the solution should start with having the council as a body choosing who the mayor is…”

    With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.

  83. davisite

    “Rather, the solution should start with having the council as a body choosing who the mayor is…”

    With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.

  84. davisite

    “Rather, the solution should start with having the council as a body choosing who the mayor is…”

    With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.

  85. 無名 - wu ming

    civility discussion aside, i’d like to see some new faces in city council politics next time around. the current crop strikes me of devoid of any interesting ideas, on all sides of whatever factional struggle we’ve got going. lamar’s about the best we’ve got, honestly, and he was (significantly, IMO) a newbie to city politics when he ran the first time.

    oh, and i generally agree with rich here, oddly enough. saylor sounds like a whiner, greenwald’s hardly a model for collegiality, the council’s been fixated on petty personality conflicts for close to a decade now, and politics is a contact sport.

    i don’t think there’s anything wrong with doug’s editorial, though; his editorial bent is pretty up front, which is as it should be, given that this is a blog. nothing wrong with that, i certainly don’t make claims of objectivity when i write.

  86. 無名 - wu ming

    civility discussion aside, i’d like to see some new faces in city council politics next time around. the current crop strikes me of devoid of any interesting ideas, on all sides of whatever factional struggle we’ve got going. lamar’s about the best we’ve got, honestly, and he was (significantly, IMO) a newbie to city politics when he ran the first time.

    oh, and i generally agree with rich here, oddly enough. saylor sounds like a whiner, greenwald’s hardly a model for collegiality, the council’s been fixated on petty personality conflicts for close to a decade now, and politics is a contact sport.

    i don’t think there’s anything wrong with doug’s editorial, though; his editorial bent is pretty up front, which is as it should be, given that this is a blog. nothing wrong with that, i certainly don’t make claims of objectivity when i write.

  87. 無名 - wu ming

    civility discussion aside, i’d like to see some new faces in city council politics next time around. the current crop strikes me of devoid of any interesting ideas, on all sides of whatever factional struggle we’ve got going. lamar’s about the best we’ve got, honestly, and he was (significantly, IMO) a newbie to city politics when he ran the first time.

    oh, and i generally agree with rich here, oddly enough. saylor sounds like a whiner, greenwald’s hardly a model for collegiality, the council’s been fixated on petty personality conflicts for close to a decade now, and politics is a contact sport.

    i don’t think there’s anything wrong with doug’s editorial, though; his editorial bent is pretty up front, which is as it should be, given that this is a blog. nothing wrong with that, i certainly don’t make claims of objectivity when i write.

  88. 無名 - wu ming

    civility discussion aside, i’d like to see some new faces in city council politics next time around. the current crop strikes me of devoid of any interesting ideas, on all sides of whatever factional struggle we’ve got going. lamar’s about the best we’ve got, honestly, and he was (significantly, IMO) a newbie to city politics when he ran the first time.

    oh, and i generally agree with rich here, oddly enough. saylor sounds like a whiner, greenwald’s hardly a model for collegiality, the council’s been fixated on petty personality conflicts for close to a decade now, and politics is a contact sport.

    i don’t think there’s anything wrong with doug’s editorial, though; his editorial bent is pretty up front, which is as it should be, given that this is a blog. nothing wrong with that, i certainly don’t make claims of objectivity when i write.

  89. Rich Rifkin

    “If that’s the case Rich, then why have you taken such care to refute it without actually questioning any of the facts at hand.”

    Vincente,

    You seem to have not noticed that my post to which you were responding was taken verbatim from what David Greenwald wrote in his essay. I just substituted this name for Don Saylor’s.

    “With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.”

    If having a majority select the person to run the meetings is Authoritarian, then you must think that Nancy Pelosi, who was chosen by her colleagues in her party to be Seaker of the House is some kind of dictator?

  90. Rich Rifkin

    “If that’s the case Rich, then why have you taken such care to refute it without actually questioning any of the facts at hand.”

    Vincente,

    You seem to have not noticed that my post to which you were responding was taken verbatim from what David Greenwald wrote in his essay. I just substituted this name for Don Saylor’s.

    “With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.”

    If having a majority select the person to run the meetings is Authoritarian, then you must think that Nancy Pelosi, who was chosen by her colleagues in her party to be Seaker of the House is some kind of dictator?

  91. Rich Rifkin

    “If that’s the case Rich, then why have you taken such care to refute it without actually questioning any of the facts at hand.”

    Vincente,

    You seem to have not noticed that my post to which you were responding was taken verbatim from what David Greenwald wrote in his essay. I just substituted this name for Don Saylor’s.

    “With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.”

    If having a majority select the person to run the meetings is Authoritarian, then you must think that Nancy Pelosi, who was chosen by her colleagues in her party to be Seaker of the House is some kind of dictator?

  92. Rich Rifkin

    “If that’s the case Rich, then why have you taken such care to refute it without actually questioning any of the facts at hand.”

    Vincente,

    You seem to have not noticed that my post to which you were responding was taken verbatim from what David Greenwald wrote in his essay. I just substituted this name for Don Saylor’s.

    “With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.”

    If having a majority select the person to run the meetings is Authoritarian, then you must think that Nancy Pelosi, who was chosen by her colleagues in her party to be Seaker of the House is some kind of dictator?

  93. davisite

    The House rules are indeed restrictive for the minority..Pelosi promises to do better following the “first 100 days” of legislation.. and ,of course, the Senate has much different rules where without 60 votes, discussion cannot be cut off. ..there is no such alternative for the Gang of Three’s attempts to gag dissent.

  94. davisite

    The House rules are indeed restrictive for the minority..Pelosi promises to do better following the “first 100 days” of legislation.. and ,of course, the Senate has much different rules where without 60 votes, discussion cannot be cut off. ..there is no such alternative for the Gang of Three’s attempts to gag dissent.

  95. davisite

    The House rules are indeed restrictive for the minority..Pelosi promises to do better following the “first 100 days” of legislation.. and ,of course, the Senate has much different rules where without 60 votes, discussion cannot be cut off. ..there is no such alternative for the Gang of Three’s attempts to gag dissent.

  96. davisite

    The House rules are indeed restrictive for the minority..Pelosi promises to do better following the “first 100 days” of legislation.. and ,of course, the Senate has much different rules where without 60 votes, discussion cannot be cut off. ..there is no such alternative for the Gang of Three’s attempts to gag dissent.

  97. Rich Rifkin

    “there is no such alternative for the Gang of Three’s attempts to gag dissent.”

    Davisite,

    While I realize that you are intentionally being hyperbolic, you do realize that having a majority, with a majority selected mayor, would not gag anyone. The two minority members would still have every right to speak on every issue and make whatever motions they would wish to offer. The principal difference would be that the majority mayor would not have an incentive to filibuster each debate, in an effort to put off losing each issue. And if the council chose the mayor itself, the mayor would have an incentive to get along with his/her colleagues. If he/she did not, the council could replace him/her with a single vote. In our current set-up, the mayor has no repurcussions from being abrasive to her colleagues, other than the fact that she has so alienated 3 of them, that they won’t give her an inch on issues such as which subcommittees she can serve on.

  98. Rich Rifkin

    “there is no such alternative for the Gang of Three’s attempts to gag dissent.”

    Davisite,

    While I realize that you are intentionally being hyperbolic, you do realize that having a majority, with a majority selected mayor, would not gag anyone. The two minority members would still have every right to speak on every issue and make whatever motions they would wish to offer. The principal difference would be that the majority mayor would not have an incentive to filibuster each debate, in an effort to put off losing each issue. And if the council chose the mayor itself, the mayor would have an incentive to get along with his/her colleagues. If he/she did not, the council could replace him/her with a single vote. In our current set-up, the mayor has no repurcussions from being abrasive to her colleagues, other than the fact that she has so alienated 3 of them, that they won’t give her an inch on issues such as which subcommittees she can serve on.

  99. Rich Rifkin

    “there is no such alternative for the Gang of Three’s attempts to gag dissent.”

    Davisite,

    While I realize that you are intentionally being hyperbolic, you do realize that having a majority, with a majority selected mayor, would not gag anyone. The two minority members would still have every right to speak on every issue and make whatever motions they would wish to offer. The principal difference would be that the majority mayor would not have an incentive to filibuster each debate, in an effort to put off losing each issue. And if the council chose the mayor itself, the mayor would have an incentive to get along with his/her colleagues. If he/she did not, the council could replace him/her with a single vote. In our current set-up, the mayor has no repurcussions from being abrasive to her colleagues, other than the fact that she has so alienated 3 of them, that they won’t give her an inch on issues such as which subcommittees she can serve on.

  100. Rich Rifkin

    “there is no such alternative for the Gang of Three’s attempts to gag dissent.”

    Davisite,

    While I realize that you are intentionally being hyperbolic, you do realize that having a majority, with a majority selected mayor, would not gag anyone. The two minority members would still have every right to speak on every issue and make whatever motions they would wish to offer. The principal difference would be that the majority mayor would not have an incentive to filibuster each debate, in an effort to put off losing each issue. And if the council chose the mayor itself, the mayor would have an incentive to get along with his/her colleagues. If he/she did not, the council could replace him/her with a single vote. In our current set-up, the mayor has no repurcussions from being abrasive to her colleagues, other than the fact that she has so alienated 3 of them, that they won’t give her an inch on issues such as which subcommittees she can serve on.

  101. Don Shor

    “With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.”

    Well, that is kind of the point of following Roberts’ Rules. They exist to provide a structure in which motions can be put forward and debated. My experience has been that the more contentious the group, the more important it is to adhere to RROO. Procedural points become rather important. A more collegial group can have a more lax format. But try to imagine this city council having open discussion periods before motions are put forward. They already extend meetings well into the early morning hours.
    IIRC, many of the conflicts under Mayors Boyd and Partansky had to do with how long speakers were allowed to talk. Time management is really important for these meetings. So it’s important to have council members who are prepared, who do their homework, who don’t add agenda items until they have all the information, and who follow the agendas and procedures.

  102. Don Shor

    “With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.”

    Well, that is kind of the point of following Roberts’ Rules. They exist to provide a structure in which motions can be put forward and debated. My experience has been that the more contentious the group, the more important it is to adhere to RROO. Procedural points become rather important. A more collegial group can have a more lax format. But try to imagine this city council having open discussion periods before motions are put forward. They already extend meetings well into the early morning hours.
    IIRC, many of the conflicts under Mayors Boyd and Partansky had to do with how long speakers were allowed to talk. Time management is really important for these meetings. So it’s important to have council members who are prepared, who do their homework, who don’t add agenda items until they have all the information, and who follow the agendas and procedures.

  103. Don Shor

    “With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.”

    Well, that is kind of the point of following Roberts’ Rules. They exist to provide a structure in which motions can be put forward and debated. My experience has been that the more contentious the group, the more important it is to adhere to RROO. Procedural points become rather important. A more collegial group can have a more lax format. But try to imagine this city council having open discussion periods before motions are put forward. They already extend meetings well into the early morning hours.
    IIRC, many of the conflicts under Mayors Boyd and Partansky had to do with how long speakers were allowed to talk. Time management is really important for these meetings. So it’s important to have council members who are prepared, who do their homework, who don’t add agenda items until they have all the information, and who follow the agendas and procedures.

  104. Don Shor

    “With the Gang of Three picking one of their own as mayor,there would indeed be little controversy…….. or DEBATE on the issues. Democracy is a messy and noisy business.. if you want it neat and efficient, you like Authoritarianism.”

    Well, that is kind of the point of following Roberts’ Rules. They exist to provide a structure in which motions can be put forward and debated. My experience has been that the more contentious the group, the more important it is to adhere to RROO. Procedural points become rather important. A more collegial group can have a more lax format. But try to imagine this city council having open discussion periods before motions are put forward. They already extend meetings well into the early morning hours.
    IIRC, many of the conflicts under Mayors Boyd and Partansky had to do with how long speakers were allowed to talk. Time management is really important for these meetings. So it’s important to have council members who are prepared, who do their homework, who don’t add agenda items until they have all the information, and who follow the agendas and procedures.

  105. davisite

    I do not need to argue this point. It is all “on tape” in the council video archives when Asmundson was mayor with a 4-1 majority.
    In spite of the Gang of Three’s efforts to neuter Sue Greenwald’s traditional perogatives as mayor, she still has some influence over the discussion flow as Chair of the meeting. As to “filibuster”….. one person’s filibuster is another’s yearning for a fuller discussion of the issues. The argument of the Gang of Three,”Why are you wasting our time since WE have the majority votes” should be unacceptable to all Davisites.

  106. davisite

    I do not need to argue this point. It is all “on tape” in the council video archives when Asmundson was mayor with a 4-1 majority.
    In spite of the Gang of Three’s efforts to neuter Sue Greenwald’s traditional perogatives as mayor, she still has some influence over the discussion flow as Chair of the meeting. As to “filibuster”….. one person’s filibuster is another’s yearning for a fuller discussion of the issues. The argument of the Gang of Three,”Why are you wasting our time since WE have the majority votes” should be unacceptable to all Davisites.

  107. davisite

    I do not need to argue this point. It is all “on tape” in the council video archives when Asmundson was mayor with a 4-1 majority.
    In spite of the Gang of Three’s efforts to neuter Sue Greenwald’s traditional perogatives as mayor, she still has some influence over the discussion flow as Chair of the meeting. As to “filibuster”….. one person’s filibuster is another’s yearning for a fuller discussion of the issues. The argument of the Gang of Three,”Why are you wasting our time since WE have the majority votes” should be unacceptable to all Davisites.

  108. davisite

    I do not need to argue this point. It is all “on tape” in the council video archives when Asmundson was mayor with a 4-1 majority.
    In spite of the Gang of Three’s efforts to neuter Sue Greenwald’s traditional perogatives as mayor, she still has some influence over the discussion flow as Chair of the meeting. As to “filibuster”….. one person’s filibuster is another’s yearning for a fuller discussion of the issues. The argument of the Gang of Three,”Why are you wasting our time since WE have the majority votes” should be unacceptable to all Davisites.

  109. Vincente

    Rich:

    I was responding to this statement by you:

    “I think most of the community can see through items such as this.”

    As several people have pointed out already, whatever parallel between Greenwald (Sue variety) and Saylor is irrelevant because Sue did not choose to insult the intelligence of the populace by feigning civility.

    People who have attacked the blog writer have missed a very critical point–not one of them has disputed the central contention. Some have suggested that the writer is biased–well duh. Some have suggested that Sue is as bad as Don. I don’t think she is, she may be shrill and whiny, but I don’t think she has the history.

    But not one person, NOT ONE, has suggested that Don is a nice guy who has been misrepresented in this blog. I find that very revealing. Does someone want to counter that contention? Because all the rest of this discussion is mere subterfuge.

  110. Vincente

    Rich:

    I was responding to this statement by you:

    “I think most of the community can see through items such as this.”

    As several people have pointed out already, whatever parallel between Greenwald (Sue variety) and Saylor is irrelevant because Sue did not choose to insult the intelligence of the populace by feigning civility.

    People who have attacked the blog writer have missed a very critical point–not one of them has disputed the central contention. Some have suggested that the writer is biased–well duh. Some have suggested that Sue is as bad as Don. I don’t think she is, she may be shrill and whiny, but I don’t think she has the history.

    But not one person, NOT ONE, has suggested that Don is a nice guy who has been misrepresented in this blog. I find that very revealing. Does someone want to counter that contention? Because all the rest of this discussion is mere subterfuge.

  111. Vincente

    Rich:

    I was responding to this statement by you:

    “I think most of the community can see through items such as this.”

    As several people have pointed out already, whatever parallel between Greenwald (Sue variety) and Saylor is irrelevant because Sue did not choose to insult the intelligence of the populace by feigning civility.

    People who have attacked the blog writer have missed a very critical point–not one of them has disputed the central contention. Some have suggested that the writer is biased–well duh. Some have suggested that Sue is as bad as Don. I don’t think she is, she may be shrill and whiny, but I don’t think she has the history.

    But not one person, NOT ONE, has suggested that Don is a nice guy who has been misrepresented in this blog. I find that very revealing. Does someone want to counter that contention? Because all the rest of this discussion is mere subterfuge.

  112. Vincente

    Rich:

    I was responding to this statement by you:

    “I think most of the community can see through items such as this.”

    As several people have pointed out already, whatever parallel between Greenwald (Sue variety) and Saylor is irrelevant because Sue did not choose to insult the intelligence of the populace by feigning civility.

    People who have attacked the blog writer have missed a very critical point–not one of them has disputed the central contention. Some have suggested that the writer is biased–well duh. Some have suggested that Sue is as bad as Don. I don’t think she is, she may be shrill and whiny, but I don’t think she has the history.

    But not one person, NOT ONE, has suggested that Don is a nice guy who has been misrepresented in this blog. I find that very revealing. Does someone want to counter that contention? Because all the rest of this discussion is mere subterfuge.

  113. Rich Rifkin

    “But not one person, NOT ONE, has suggested that Don is a nice guy who has been misrepresented in this blog.”

    I think Don is a nice guy. I think he’s been unfairly attacked on this blog. I think Don’s purpose was honorable — to try to bring about more civility and reduce the level of partisan attack.

  114. Rich Rifkin

    “But not one person, NOT ONE, has suggested that Don is a nice guy who has been misrepresented in this blog.”

    I think Don is a nice guy. I think he’s been unfairly attacked on this blog. I think Don’s purpose was honorable — to try to bring about more civility and reduce the level of partisan attack.

  115. Rich Rifkin

    “But not one person, NOT ONE, has suggested that Don is a nice guy who has been misrepresented in this blog.”

    I think Don is a nice guy. I think he’s been unfairly attacked on this blog. I think Don’s purpose was honorable — to try to bring about more civility and reduce the level of partisan attack.

  116. Rich Rifkin

    “But not one person, NOT ONE, has suggested that Don is a nice guy who has been misrepresented in this blog.”

    I think Don is a nice guy. I think he’s been unfairly attacked on this blog. I think Don’s purpose was honorable — to try to bring about more civility and reduce the level of partisan attack.

  117. Anonymous

    I have lived in Davis for a long time and seldom have I encountered a meaner and nastier individual than Mr. Saylor.

    If you claim that Saylor is a nice person, you obviously do not know him very well and have not had to deal with him very often.

    This is a man who made a man cry and then laughed at him in his face.

  118. Anonymous

    I have lived in Davis for a long time and seldom have I encountered a meaner and nastier individual than Mr. Saylor.

    If you claim that Saylor is a nice person, you obviously do not know him very well and have not had to deal with him very often.

    This is a man who made a man cry and then laughed at him in his face.

  119. Anonymous

    I have lived in Davis for a long time and seldom have I encountered a meaner and nastier individual than Mr. Saylor.

    If you claim that Saylor is a nice person, you obviously do not know him very well and have not had to deal with him very often.

    This is a man who made a man cry and then laughed at him in his face.

  120. Anonymous

    I have lived in Davis for a long time and seldom have I encountered a meaner and nastier individual than Mr. Saylor.

    If you claim that Saylor is a nice person, you obviously do not know him very well and have not had to deal with him very often.

    This is a man who made a man cry and then laughed at him in his face.

  121. Progressive Davisite

    I read this post and the comments and all I see is uncivility;
    Don Saylor has supported of many things a true progessive Davisites believe in because:

    1. The availibity of housing is one I can think of (Covell Village)

    2. The chance to buy quality goods at a good price (Target) in town avoiding costly (money and enviromental) trips to Woodland and Dixon.

    3. His track record of trying to help those who need it the most. (cal youth authority)

    …And to all those who say he did a bad job? AT LEAST HE HAS TRIED!!!! Have you??

    (sorry, UCD professor or teaching on year in Columbia does not count)

    What do I know, I am just one of those Davisites who cant afford to live in Davis, and can’t find anything of quality that I can squeeze into my budget.

  122. Progressive Davisite

    I read this post and the comments and all I see is uncivility;
    Don Saylor has supported of many things a true progessive Davisites believe in because:

    1. The availibity of housing is one I can think of (Covell Village)

    2. The chance to buy quality goods at a good price (Target) in town avoiding costly (money and enviromental) trips to Woodland and Dixon.

    3. His track record of trying to help those who need it the most. (cal youth authority)

    …And to all those who say he did a bad job? AT LEAST HE HAS TRIED!!!! Have you??

    (sorry, UCD professor or teaching on year in Columbia does not count)

    What do I know, I am just one of those Davisites who cant afford to live in Davis, and can’t find anything of quality that I can squeeze into my budget.

  123. Progressive Davisite

    I read this post and the comments and all I see is uncivility;
    Don Saylor has supported of many things a true progessive Davisites believe in because:

    1. The availibity of housing is one I can think of (Covell Village)

    2. The chance to buy quality goods at a good price (Target) in town avoiding costly (money and enviromental) trips to Woodland and Dixon.

    3. His track record of trying to help those who need it the most. (cal youth authority)

    …And to all those who say he did a bad job? AT LEAST HE HAS TRIED!!!! Have you??

    (sorry, UCD professor or teaching on year in Columbia does not count)

    What do I know, I am just one of those Davisites who cant afford to live in Davis, and can’t find anything of quality that I can squeeze into my budget.

  124. Progressive Davisite

    I read this post and the comments and all I see is uncivility;
    Don Saylor has supported of many things a true progessive Davisites believe in because:

    1. The availibity of housing is one I can think of (Covell Village)

    2. The chance to buy quality goods at a good price (Target) in town avoiding costly (money and enviromental) trips to Woodland and Dixon.

    3. His track record of trying to help those who need it the most. (cal youth authority)

    …And to all those who say he did a bad job? AT LEAST HE HAS TRIED!!!! Have you??

    (sorry, UCD professor or teaching on year in Columbia does not count)

    What do I know, I am just one of those Davisites who cant afford to live in Davis, and can’t find anything of quality that I can squeeze into my budget.

  125. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…
    “Lynne C.”

    First off, it’s Lynn.

    Secondly, Saylor’s proposals are all about becoming Trash-a-ville not keeping Davis, Davis. If you want remote suburbs and trashy, freeway strip malls please move there and leave us alone.

  126. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…
    “Lynne C.”

    First off, it’s Lynn.

    Secondly, Saylor’s proposals are all about becoming Trash-a-ville not keeping Davis, Davis. If you want remote suburbs and trashy, freeway strip malls please move there and leave us alone.

  127. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…
    “Lynne C.”

    First off, it’s Lynn.

    Secondly, Saylor’s proposals are all about becoming Trash-a-ville not keeping Davis, Davis. If you want remote suburbs and trashy, freeway strip malls please move there and leave us alone.

  128. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…
    “Lynne C.”

    First off, it’s Lynn.

    Secondly, Saylor’s proposals are all about becoming Trash-a-ville not keeping Davis, Davis. If you want remote suburbs and trashy, freeway strip malls please move there and leave us alone.

  129. Progressive Davisite

    Vincent I am glad I can answer that,

    1. Moderate growth give people more options on where to live. this will increase the supply and lower rents over time across our city.
    2. Target: that will be a big help to people like myself.
    3. Keep davis green!
    4. improve community after school programs for our children.

    Just a few ideas.

  130. Progressive Davisite

    Vincent I am glad I can answer that,

    1. Moderate growth give people more options on where to live. this will increase the supply and lower rents over time across our city.
    2. Target: that will be a big help to people like myself.
    3. Keep davis green!
    4. improve community after school programs for our children.

    Just a few ideas.

  131. Progressive Davisite

    Vincent I am glad I can answer that,

    1. Moderate growth give people more options on where to live. this will increase the supply and lower rents over time across our city.
    2. Target: that will be a big help to people like myself.
    3. Keep davis green!
    4. improve community after school programs for our children.

    Just a few ideas.

  132. Progressive Davisite

    Vincent I am glad I can answer that,

    1. Moderate growth give people more options on where to live. this will increase the supply and lower rents over time across our city.
    2. Target: that will be a big help to people like myself.
    3. Keep davis green!
    4. improve community after school programs for our children.

    Just a few ideas.

  133. Doug Paul Davis

    Moderate is growth is not likely to have much impact on rent or property rates but it will have a large impact on the character of the community.

    There are a million Targets, I see no need for us to build one about the same time that we are going to realize that giant corporations are chief causes of the problems of global warming and fundamentally unsustainable. We need smaller, locally owned business to really thrive.

    I don’t know what keeping Davis green means, but I prefer to protect agricultural land and open space by not encroaching on them with leap frog and other forms of peripheral development.

    Community after school programs is a throwaway, everyone would support such concepts, no one has actually done anything about them.

  134. Doug Paul Davis

    Moderate is growth is not likely to have much impact on rent or property rates but it will have a large impact on the character of the community.

    There are a million Targets, I see no need for us to build one about the same time that we are going to realize that giant corporations are chief causes of the problems of global warming and fundamentally unsustainable. We need smaller, locally owned business to really thrive.

    I don’t know what keeping Davis green means, but I prefer to protect agricultural land and open space by not encroaching on them with leap frog and other forms of peripheral development.

    Community after school programs is a throwaway, everyone would support such concepts, no one has actually done anything about them.

  135. Doug Paul Davis

    Moderate is growth is not likely to have much impact on rent or property rates but it will have a large impact on the character of the community.

    There are a million Targets, I see no need for us to build one about the same time that we are going to realize that giant corporations are chief causes of the problems of global warming and fundamentally unsustainable. We need smaller, locally owned business to really thrive.

    I don’t know what keeping Davis green means, but I prefer to protect agricultural land and open space by not encroaching on them with leap frog and other forms of peripheral development.

    Community after school programs is a throwaway, everyone would support such concepts, no one has actually done anything about them.

  136. Doug Paul Davis

    Moderate is growth is not likely to have much impact on rent or property rates but it will have a large impact on the character of the community.

    There are a million Targets, I see no need for us to build one about the same time that we are going to realize that giant corporations are chief causes of the problems of global warming and fundamentally unsustainable. We need smaller, locally owned business to really thrive.

    I don’t know what keeping Davis green means, but I prefer to protect agricultural land and open space by not encroaching on them with leap frog and other forms of peripheral development.

    Community after school programs is a throwaway, everyone would support such concepts, no one has actually done anything about them.

  137. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…

    “2. Target: that will be a big help to people like myself.
    3. Keep davis green! “

    #2 and #3 are just about the most oxymoronic ideas (emphasis on the moronic) possible. Shop locally and you’ll save just as much as well as support your community, not a face-less company that doesn’t give a crap about community or local merchants.

  138. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…

    “2. Target: that will be a big help to people like myself.
    3. Keep davis green! “

    #2 and #3 are just about the most oxymoronic ideas (emphasis on the moronic) possible. Shop locally and you’ll save just as much as well as support your community, not a face-less company that doesn’t give a crap about community or local merchants.

  139. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…

    “2. Target: that will be a big help to people like myself.
    3. Keep davis green! “

    #2 and #3 are just about the most oxymoronic ideas (emphasis on the moronic) possible. Shop locally and you’ll save just as much as well as support your community, not a face-less company that doesn’t give a crap about community or local merchants.

  140. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…

    “2. Target: that will be a big help to people like myself.
    3. Keep davis green! “

    #2 and #3 are just about the most oxymoronic ideas (emphasis on the moronic) possible. Shop locally and you’ll save just as much as well as support your community, not a face-less company that doesn’t give a crap about community or local merchants.

  141. Progressive Davisite

    Lynn, I am sorry for spelling your name wrong.

    1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.
    2. the first community in our area to have a LEED certified building. Thats not trashy, thats being a community that leads by example.

    (pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!
    I hope you do too

  142. Progressive Davisite

    Lynn, I am sorry for spelling your name wrong.

    1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.
    2. the first community in our area to have a LEED certified building. Thats not trashy, thats being a community that leads by example.

    (pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!
    I hope you do too

  143. Progressive Davisite

    Lynn, I am sorry for spelling your name wrong.

    1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.
    2. the first community in our area to have a LEED certified building. Thats not trashy, thats being a community that leads by example.

    (pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!
    I hope you do too

  144. Progressive Davisite

    Lynn, I am sorry for spelling your name wrong.

    1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.
    2. the first community in our area to have a LEED certified building. Thats not trashy, thats being a community that leads by example.

    (pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!
    I hope you do too

  145. Vincente

    Can you explain what it means for something to be LEED certified? And how having a LEED certified Target will mitigate the net negative impact that Target and big boxes have on the carbon footprint?

  146. Vincente

    Can you explain what it means for something to be LEED certified? And how having a LEED certified Target will mitigate the net negative impact that Target and big boxes have on the carbon footprint?

  147. Vincente

    Can you explain what it means for something to be LEED certified? And how having a LEED certified Target will mitigate the net negative impact that Target and big boxes have on the carbon footprint?

  148. Vincente

    Can you explain what it means for something to be LEED certified? And how having a LEED certified Target will mitigate the net negative impact that Target and big boxes have on the carbon footprint?

  149. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…

    “1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.”

    Wow. That’s Pollyannaish and very naive to think he’s “just” a council member. He is absolutely pro-development and absolutely working with developers. Essentially yes, he is a developer that sits on the council.

    “(pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!
    I hope you do too”

    I believe it’s people like you that are turning this community into trashy suburbs. You want to have your $tarbucks and Targets because you don’t want to have to think when you shop. You want what you want when you want it and you want it now because you’re lazy.

  150. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…

    “1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.”

    Wow. That’s Pollyannaish and very naive to think he’s “just” a council member. He is absolutely pro-development and absolutely working with developers. Essentially yes, he is a developer that sits on the council.

    “(pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!
    I hope you do too”

    I believe it’s people like you that are turning this community into trashy suburbs. You want to have your $tarbucks and Targets because you don’t want to have to think when you shop. You want what you want when you want it and you want it now because you’re lazy.

  151. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…

    “1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.”

    Wow. That’s Pollyannaish and very naive to think he’s “just” a council member. He is absolutely pro-development and absolutely working with developers. Essentially yes, he is a developer that sits on the council.

    “(pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!
    I hope you do too”

    I believe it’s people like you that are turning this community into trashy suburbs. You want to have your $tarbucks and Targets because you don’t want to have to think when you shop. You want what you want when you want it and you want it now because you’re lazy.

  152. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite said…

    “1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.”

    Wow. That’s Pollyannaish and very naive to think he’s “just” a council member. He is absolutely pro-development and absolutely working with developers. Essentially yes, he is a developer that sits on the council.

    “(pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!
    I hope you do too”

    I believe it’s people like you that are turning this community into trashy suburbs. You want to have your $tarbucks and Targets because you don’t want to have to think when you shop. You want what you want when you want it and you want it now because you’re lazy.

  153. Progressive Davisite

    Lynn C.

    Wow, you are nice person. you don’t know anything about me and i know little of you, except you had to attack me personaly. Thats not the open minded community I moved too.

    I love this blog becuase it is a place people like us that care and talk about our difference with out being shouted down or insulted (too much 🙂 ).

    Growth is going to happen no matter what anyone says, if we dont grow the county will make us.

    If we are going to grow, the growth it should make life easier for everyone (working families, poor and even the wealthy who dont have budgets they need to worry about).

  154. Progressive Davisite

    Lynn C.

    Wow, you are nice person. you don’t know anything about me and i know little of you, except you had to attack me personaly. Thats not the open minded community I moved too.

    I love this blog becuase it is a place people like us that care and talk about our difference with out being shouted down or insulted (too much 🙂 ).

    Growth is going to happen no matter what anyone says, if we dont grow the county will make us.

    If we are going to grow, the growth it should make life easier for everyone (working families, poor and even the wealthy who dont have budgets they need to worry about).

  155. Progressive Davisite

    Lynn C.

    Wow, you are nice person. you don’t know anything about me and i know little of you, except you had to attack me personaly. Thats not the open minded community I moved too.

    I love this blog becuase it is a place people like us that care and talk about our difference with out being shouted down or insulted (too much 🙂 ).

    Growth is going to happen no matter what anyone says, if we dont grow the county will make us.

    If we are going to grow, the growth it should make life easier for everyone (working families, poor and even the wealthy who dont have budgets they need to worry about).

  156. Progressive Davisite

    Lynn C.

    Wow, you are nice person. you don’t know anything about me and i know little of you, except you had to attack me personaly. Thats not the open minded community I moved too.

    I love this blog becuase it is a place people like us that care and talk about our difference with out being shouted down or insulted (too much 🙂 ).

    Growth is going to happen no matter what anyone says, if we dont grow the county will make us.

    If we are going to grow, the growth it should make life easier for everyone (working families, poor and even the wealthy who dont have budgets they need to worry about).

  157. Don Shor

    “pro-worker and working class-“
    Target is about the worst employer there is. Wal-Mart pays better and gives better benefits. And both are virulently anti-union.

  158. Don Shor

    “pro-worker and working class-“
    Target is about the worst employer there is. Wal-Mart pays better and gives better benefits. And both are virulently anti-union.

  159. Don Shor

    “pro-worker and working class-“
    Target is about the worst employer there is. Wal-Mart pays better and gives better benefits. And both are virulently anti-union.

  160. Don Shor

    “pro-worker and working class-“
    Target is about the worst employer there is. Wal-Mart pays better and gives better benefits. And both are virulently anti-union.

  161. wtf

    “progressive davisite” said:

    1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.

    Saylor and Asmundson invited Target to submit a development proposal. Without that invitation, we wouldn’t have Target and its associated traffic, pollution, and sweatshop-produced goods in Davis. Saylor (along with Souza, Puntillo, and Asmundson) also campaigned door-to-door and at the Farmers Market in support of Covell Village. Finally, read through the lists of his campaign donors and see if you recognize any names of local developers.

    2. the first community in our area to have a LEED certified building. Thats not trashy, thats being a community that leads by example.

    The Target building as proposed achieved the lowest level of LEED certification. Moreover, the ordinance only calls for Target to try to reach LEED certification, and contains no penalties if they build their usual scorched-earth big-box. Finally, as has been stated several times on this blog, a marginally environmentally-friendly building doesn’t offset the negative impact of the goods sold within the building.

    (pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!

    How can you be “pro-worker” and pro-Target? Target Corporation is not just non-union, it’s anti-union. Target contributes massive amounts of money to Republican causes. Target buys goods from overseas manufacturers with poor human rights records. (Visit http://www.knowmore.org/ and search on “Target Corporation” for more information.)

    You should try educating yourself some more so that you can actually live the ideals of “pro-worker” and “pro-working class” instead of just saying them.

  162. wtf

    “progressive davisite” said:

    1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.

    Saylor and Asmundson invited Target to submit a development proposal. Without that invitation, we wouldn’t have Target and its associated traffic, pollution, and sweatshop-produced goods in Davis. Saylor (along with Souza, Puntillo, and Asmundson) also campaigned door-to-door and at the Farmers Market in support of Covell Village. Finally, read through the lists of his campaign donors and see if you recognize any names of local developers.

    2. the first community in our area to have a LEED certified building. Thats not trashy, thats being a community that leads by example.

    The Target building as proposed achieved the lowest level of LEED certification. Moreover, the ordinance only calls for Target to try to reach LEED certification, and contains no penalties if they build their usual scorched-earth big-box. Finally, as has been stated several times on this blog, a marginally environmentally-friendly building doesn’t offset the negative impact of the goods sold within the building.

    (pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!

    How can you be “pro-worker” and pro-Target? Target Corporation is not just non-union, it’s anti-union. Target contributes massive amounts of money to Republican causes. Target buys goods from overseas manufacturers with poor human rights records. (Visit http://www.knowmore.org/ and search on “Target Corporation” for more information.)

    You should try educating yourself some more so that you can actually live the ideals of “pro-worker” and “pro-working class” instead of just saying them.

  163. wtf

    “progressive davisite” said:

    1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.

    Saylor and Asmundson invited Target to submit a development proposal. Without that invitation, we wouldn’t have Target and its associated traffic, pollution, and sweatshop-produced goods in Davis. Saylor (along with Souza, Puntillo, and Asmundson) also campaigned door-to-door and at the Farmers Market in support of Covell Village. Finally, read through the lists of his campaign donors and see if you recognize any names of local developers.

    2. the first community in our area to have a LEED certified building. Thats not trashy, thats being a community that leads by example.

    The Target building as proposed achieved the lowest level of LEED certification. Moreover, the ordinance only calls for Target to try to reach LEED certification, and contains no penalties if they build their usual scorched-earth big-box. Finally, as has been stated several times on this blog, a marginally environmentally-friendly building doesn’t offset the negative impact of the goods sold within the building.

    (pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!

    How can you be “pro-worker” and pro-Target? Target Corporation is not just non-union, it’s anti-union. Target contributes massive amounts of money to Republican causes. Target buys goods from overseas manufacturers with poor human rights records. (Visit http://www.knowmore.org/ and search on “Target Corporation” for more information.)

    You should try educating yourself some more so that you can actually live the ideals of “pro-worker” and “pro-working class” instead of just saying them.

  164. wtf

    “progressive davisite” said:

    1. Saylor does not propose anything, he is a council member not a developer.

    Saylor and Asmundson invited Target to submit a development proposal. Without that invitation, we wouldn’t have Target and its associated traffic, pollution, and sweatshop-produced goods in Davis. Saylor (along with Souza, Puntillo, and Asmundson) also campaigned door-to-door and at the Farmers Market in support of Covell Village. Finally, read through the lists of his campaign donors and see if you recognize any names of local developers.

    2. the first community in our area to have a LEED certified building. Thats not trashy, thats being a community that leads by example.

    The Target building as proposed achieved the lowest level of LEED certification. Moreover, the ordinance only calls for Target to try to reach LEED certification, and contains no penalties if they build their usual scorched-earth big-box. Finally, as has been stated several times on this blog, a marginally environmentally-friendly building doesn’t offset the negative impact of the goods sold within the building.

    (pro-worker and working class- Pro-education, Pro-Green,) that is what I belive Davis is all about!

    How can you be “pro-worker” and pro-Target? Target Corporation is not just non-union, it’s anti-union. Target contributes massive amounts of money to Republican causes. Target buys goods from overseas manufacturers with poor human rights records. (Visit http://www.knowmore.org/ and search on “Target Corporation” for more information.)

    You should try educating yourself some more so that you can actually live the ideals of “pro-worker” and “pro-working class” instead of just saying them.

  165. Vincente

    “Growth is going to happen no matter what anyone says, if we dont grow the county will make us.”

    The county cannot make us grow without losing significant revenue through the pass-through agreement.

  166. Vincente

    “Growth is going to happen no matter what anyone says, if we dont grow the county will make us.”

    The county cannot make us grow without losing significant revenue through the pass-through agreement.

  167. Vincente

    “Growth is going to happen no matter what anyone says, if we dont grow the county will make us.”

    The county cannot make us grow without losing significant revenue through the pass-through agreement.

  168. Vincente

    “Growth is going to happen no matter what anyone says, if we dont grow the county will make us.”

    The county cannot make us grow without losing significant revenue through the pass-through agreement.

  169. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite, did you want some water to wash all that “inconvenient truth” down with? Why not take a big gulp full of water from the fountain in your new “green” Target that will be built next to the Frontier Fertilizer site that is leaking toxins in the groundwater. Drink up!

  170. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite, did you want some water to wash all that “inconvenient truth” down with? Why not take a big gulp full of water from the fountain in your new “green” Target that will be built next to the Frontier Fertilizer site that is leaking toxins in the groundwater. Drink up!

  171. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite, did you want some water to wash all that “inconvenient truth” down with? Why not take a big gulp full of water from the fountain in your new “green” Target that will be built next to the Frontier Fertilizer site that is leaking toxins in the groundwater. Drink up!

  172. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite, did you want some water to wash all that “inconvenient truth” down with? Why not take a big gulp full of water from the fountain in your new “green” Target that will be built next to the Frontier Fertilizer site that is leaking toxins in the groundwater. Drink up!

  173. davisite

    It is my understanding that Target Corp. allows its pharmacists(yes, there will be a pharmacy)to refuse to fill perscriptions for legal “morning-after” contraception. The pharmacists are instructed to tell the customer where to go to get their perscription filled. How would you like to be standing there, having to publicly “deal” with this? Target Corp. is Wal-Mart lite.

  174. davisite

    It is my understanding that Target Corp. allows its pharmacists(yes, there will be a pharmacy)to refuse to fill perscriptions for legal “morning-after” contraception. The pharmacists are instructed to tell the customer where to go to get their perscription filled. How would you like to be standing there, having to publicly “deal” with this? Target Corp. is Wal-Mart lite.

  175. davisite

    It is my understanding that Target Corp. allows its pharmacists(yes, there will be a pharmacy)to refuse to fill perscriptions for legal “morning-after” contraception. The pharmacists are instructed to tell the customer where to go to get their perscription filled. How would you like to be standing there, having to publicly “deal” with this? Target Corp. is Wal-Mart lite.

  176. davisite

    It is my understanding that Target Corp. allows its pharmacists(yes, there will be a pharmacy)to refuse to fill perscriptions for legal “morning-after” contraception. The pharmacists are instructed to tell the customer where to go to get their perscription filled. How would you like to be standing there, having to publicly “deal” with this? Target Corp. is Wal-Mart lite.

  177. Davis Mom

    “Progressive Davisite” has a good point about the unaffordability of housing in Davis.

    I’ve raised three children in Davis; two have professional careers and families and one is still in college — but none of them can afford to live in Davis.

    What are the solutions to this problem? Or are there only a few of us who even think THIS IS A PROBLEM?

    I don’t want Davis to turn into a community only for the well-off, but it seems that is the direction Davis is heading in.

    Finally, without mentioning names, could we PLEASE have more civility in the public discourse on THIS blog? We can discuss, debate and even disagree — without mean-spirited personal attacks.

  178. Davis Mom

    “Progressive Davisite” has a good point about the unaffordability of housing in Davis.

    I’ve raised three children in Davis; two have professional careers and families and one is still in college — but none of them can afford to live in Davis.

    What are the solutions to this problem? Or are there only a few of us who even think THIS IS A PROBLEM?

    I don’t want Davis to turn into a community only for the well-off, but it seems that is the direction Davis is heading in.

    Finally, without mentioning names, could we PLEASE have more civility in the public discourse on THIS blog? We can discuss, debate and even disagree — without mean-spirited personal attacks.

  179. Davis Mom

    “Progressive Davisite” has a good point about the unaffordability of housing in Davis.

    I’ve raised three children in Davis; two have professional careers and families and one is still in college — but none of them can afford to live in Davis.

    What are the solutions to this problem? Or are there only a few of us who even think THIS IS A PROBLEM?

    I don’t want Davis to turn into a community only for the well-off, but it seems that is the direction Davis is heading in.

    Finally, without mentioning names, could we PLEASE have more civility in the public discourse on THIS blog? We can discuss, debate and even disagree — without mean-spirited personal attacks.

  180. Davis Mom

    “Progressive Davisite” has a good point about the unaffordability of housing in Davis.

    I’ve raised three children in Davis; two have professional careers and families and one is still in college — but none of them can afford to live in Davis.

    What are the solutions to this problem? Or are there only a few of us who even think THIS IS A PROBLEM?

    I don’t want Davis to turn into a community only for the well-off, but it seems that is the direction Davis is heading in.

    Finally, without mentioning names, could we PLEASE have more civility in the public discourse on THIS blog? We can discuss, debate and even disagree — without mean-spirited personal attacks.

  181. Anonymous

    “This editorial and discourse by Mr. Greenwald seems to use his language, cynical, mean-spirited, and likely politically motivated.”
    –Rich Rifkin

    On the contrary, Doug Davis seems concerned with gathering detail and facts, a reporter’s job, along with expressing his opinion.

    Don Saylor, on the other hand, in his opinion piece about “civility” definitely is a politically motivated writer. He writes, “Nearly every day, someone in Davis expresses concern to me about the stark incivility that mars much of the public dialogue in our community.”
    Who is this mysterious “someone?”
    Not just anybody, that’s for sure. Saylor is appealing/playing to his perceived base, whom he describes concisely: “We have built our shared identity on a strong tradition of involvement of stakeholders in decisions that affect them.”
    Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, defines “stakeholder” as: “a person entrusted with the stakes of bettors.” That sums up Saylor’s relationship to his constituency in a nutshell. The wealthy owners in this town who entrust their bets on its future to Saylor.
    According to Saylor’s “Us vs. Them” world view, if you’re a renter, or smallholder then you have no stake in the town’s future.
    The “civility” issue is simply Saylor’s way of saying a reader of his column is either in his constituency or not.
    Or, as the Monty Pythonites used to say, “Wink-Wink, Nudge-Nudge, Say no more.”

  182. Anonymous

    “This editorial and discourse by Mr. Greenwald seems to use his language, cynical, mean-spirited, and likely politically motivated.”
    –Rich Rifkin

    On the contrary, Doug Davis seems concerned with gathering detail and facts, a reporter’s job, along with expressing his opinion.

    Don Saylor, on the other hand, in his opinion piece about “civility” definitely is a politically motivated writer. He writes, “Nearly every day, someone in Davis expresses concern to me about the stark incivility that mars much of the public dialogue in our community.”
    Who is this mysterious “someone?”
    Not just anybody, that’s for sure. Saylor is appealing/playing to his perceived base, whom he describes concisely: “We have built our shared identity on a strong tradition of involvement of stakeholders in decisions that affect them.”
    Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, defines “stakeholder” as: “a person entrusted with the stakes of bettors.” That sums up Saylor’s relationship to his constituency in a nutshell. The wealthy owners in this town who entrust their bets on its future to Saylor.
    According to Saylor’s “Us vs. Them” world view, if you’re a renter, or smallholder then you have no stake in the town’s future.
    The “civility” issue is simply Saylor’s way of saying a reader of his column is either in his constituency or not.
    Or, as the Monty Pythonites used to say, “Wink-Wink, Nudge-Nudge, Say no more.”

  183. Anonymous

    “This editorial and discourse by Mr. Greenwald seems to use his language, cynical, mean-spirited, and likely politically motivated.”
    –Rich Rifkin

    On the contrary, Doug Davis seems concerned with gathering detail and facts, a reporter’s job, along with expressing his opinion.

    Don Saylor, on the other hand, in his opinion piece about “civility” definitely is a politically motivated writer. He writes, “Nearly every day, someone in Davis expresses concern to me about the stark incivility that mars much of the public dialogue in our community.”
    Who is this mysterious “someone?”
    Not just anybody, that’s for sure. Saylor is appealing/playing to his perceived base, whom he describes concisely: “We have built our shared identity on a strong tradition of involvement of stakeholders in decisions that affect them.”
    Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, defines “stakeholder” as: “a person entrusted with the stakes of bettors.” That sums up Saylor’s relationship to his constituency in a nutshell. The wealthy owners in this town who entrust their bets on its future to Saylor.
    According to Saylor’s “Us vs. Them” world view, if you’re a renter, or smallholder then you have no stake in the town’s future.
    The “civility” issue is simply Saylor’s way of saying a reader of his column is either in his constituency or not.
    Or, as the Monty Pythonites used to say, “Wink-Wink, Nudge-Nudge, Say no more.”

  184. Anonymous

    “This editorial and discourse by Mr. Greenwald seems to use his language, cynical, mean-spirited, and likely politically motivated.”
    –Rich Rifkin

    On the contrary, Doug Davis seems concerned with gathering detail and facts, a reporter’s job, along with expressing his opinion.

    Don Saylor, on the other hand, in his opinion piece about “civility” definitely is a politically motivated writer. He writes, “Nearly every day, someone in Davis expresses concern to me about the stark incivility that mars much of the public dialogue in our community.”
    Who is this mysterious “someone?”
    Not just anybody, that’s for sure. Saylor is appealing/playing to his perceived base, whom he describes concisely: “We have built our shared identity on a strong tradition of involvement of stakeholders in decisions that affect them.”
    Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, defines “stakeholder” as: “a person entrusted with the stakes of bettors.” That sums up Saylor’s relationship to his constituency in a nutshell. The wealthy owners in this town who entrust their bets on its future to Saylor.
    According to Saylor’s “Us vs. Them” world view, if you’re a renter, or smallholder then you have no stake in the town’s future.
    The “civility” issue is simply Saylor’s way of saying a reader of his column is either in his constituency or not.
    Or, as the Monty Pythonites used to say, “Wink-Wink, Nudge-Nudge, Say no more.”

  185. Progresive davisite

    Why is it that everytime someone attacks Mr. Saylor, they dont included thier name?

    I dont, becuase I feel some of my friends who read this blog would treat me differently if they knew how I felt. Mabye anonymous feels the same way?

  186. Progresive davisite

    Why is it that everytime someone attacks Mr. Saylor, they dont included thier name?

    I dont, becuase I feel some of my friends who read this blog would treat me differently if they knew how I felt. Mabye anonymous feels the same way?

  187. Progresive davisite

    Why is it that everytime someone attacks Mr. Saylor, they dont included thier name?

    I dont, becuase I feel some of my friends who read this blog would treat me differently if they knew how I felt. Mabye anonymous feels the same way?

  188. Progresive davisite

    Why is it that everytime someone attacks Mr. Saylor, they dont included thier name?

    I dont, becuase I feel some of my friends who read this blog would treat me differently if they knew how I felt. Mabye anonymous feels the same way?

  189. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite: “Why is it that everytime someone attacks Mr. Saylor, they dont included thier name?”

    I’ve used my name every time.

    As WTF said, you should try being true to yourself and educating yourself on the facts rather than your convenient conclusions. Maybe that’s why your “friends” would think differently of you.

    And to Davis Mom, it’s ironic that you ask for civility. That’s what Saylor was hypocritically asking for as well. I’d be happy to be civil to other community members if they respected other neighborhoods and didn’t vote to develop something in their neighborhood that they wouldn’t want for their own backyards. Again with the hypocritical planning.

  190. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite: “Why is it that everytime someone attacks Mr. Saylor, they dont included thier name?”

    I’ve used my name every time.

    As WTF said, you should try being true to yourself and educating yourself on the facts rather than your convenient conclusions. Maybe that’s why your “friends” would think differently of you.

    And to Davis Mom, it’s ironic that you ask for civility. That’s what Saylor was hypocritically asking for as well. I’d be happy to be civil to other community members if they respected other neighborhoods and didn’t vote to develop something in their neighborhood that they wouldn’t want for their own backyards. Again with the hypocritical planning.

  191. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite: “Why is it that everytime someone attacks Mr. Saylor, they dont included thier name?”

    I’ve used my name every time.

    As WTF said, you should try being true to yourself and educating yourself on the facts rather than your convenient conclusions. Maybe that’s why your “friends” would think differently of you.

    And to Davis Mom, it’s ironic that you ask for civility. That’s what Saylor was hypocritically asking for as well. I’d be happy to be civil to other community members if they respected other neighborhoods and didn’t vote to develop something in their neighborhood that they wouldn’t want for their own backyards. Again with the hypocritical planning.

  192. Lynn C.

    Progressive Davisite: “Why is it that everytime someone attacks Mr. Saylor, they dont included thier name?”

    I’ve used my name every time.

    As WTF said, you should try being true to yourself and educating yourself on the facts rather than your convenient conclusions. Maybe that’s why your “friends” would think differently of you.

    And to Davis Mom, it’s ironic that you ask for civility. That’s what Saylor was hypocritically asking for as well. I’d be happy to be civil to other community members if they respected other neighborhoods and didn’t vote to develop something in their neighborhood that they wouldn’t want for their own backyards. Again with the hypocritical planning.

  193. Brian J. Kenyon

    I don’t read “Anonymous’s” post as an “attack,” but rather speculation solidly grounded in Saylor’s language. The alternative would be to take Saylor at his word, that he is promoting “civility.” But his tone and questionable facts (did he really see somebody spit on somebody else he didn’t agree with?) backing it up lead this reader to speculate otherwise.

  194. Brian J. Kenyon

    I don’t read “Anonymous’s” post as an “attack,” but rather speculation solidly grounded in Saylor’s language. The alternative would be to take Saylor at his word, that he is promoting “civility.” But his tone and questionable facts (did he really see somebody spit on somebody else he didn’t agree with?) backing it up lead this reader to speculate otherwise.

  195. Brian J. Kenyon

    I don’t read “Anonymous’s” post as an “attack,” but rather speculation solidly grounded in Saylor’s language. The alternative would be to take Saylor at his word, that he is promoting “civility.” But his tone and questionable facts (did he really see somebody spit on somebody else he didn’t agree with?) backing it up lead this reader to speculate otherwise.

  196. Brian J. Kenyon

    I don’t read “Anonymous’s” post as an “attack,” but rather speculation solidly grounded in Saylor’s language. The alternative would be to take Saylor at his word, that he is promoting “civility.” But his tone and questionable facts (did he really see somebody spit on somebody else he didn’t agree with?) backing it up lead this reader to speculate otherwise.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for