Residents at the time implored the council not to purchase the software which was rife with potential for abuse, but the majority would not deny Vina his toy.
Six months or so into the great Peak Democracy experiment, all we've got for our money is two absurd polls. The first freaked dog owners out with the question, “How important is it for off-leash dog hours to remain at Encinitas Viewpoint, Orpheus and Sun Vista parks once the new dedicated two-acre off-leash dog park is open at Encinitas Community Park?” This seemed to imply that staff were considering cutting local dog park hours and making everyone drive their dogs to the Hall Park instead. Fortunately, it seems it was just space filler so they could say they were doing something with the new software.
The second trivial question was about the arts, a multiple choice question "What's your favorite type of public art?" The choices were "interactive art," "mosaic," "mural," "sculpture," and, bizarrely, "LED installation." We hope that Encinitas Arts Director Jim Gilliam wasn't involved in writing this inane question that views the medium as the most important aspect of art.
But now the council is considering moving beyond irrelevant time-wasting internet polls, to using Peak Democracy as the primary vehicle for public input on the extremely important Housing Element Update. They'll use it to decide which properties to upzone, resulting in multi-million-dollar windfalls for some lucky property owners.
How is Peak Democracy working in other cities that have been using it longer? Let's see how verified Vallejo residents Tony Kranz, Lisa Shaffer, and Teresa Barth used Peak Democracy to give input on Vallejo public policy.
Great idea, Teresa!
Peak Democracy has a feature that distinguishes residents as "inside Vallejo" as opposed to random out-of-town commenters. Somehow, these three computer whizzes were able to persuade Peak Democracy that they were legitimate Vallejo residents.
How will we know which, if any, Encinitas opinions on Peak Democracy are real people if we are to use Peak Democracy as the primary tool for alleged "public input" on the Housing Element?
Fortunately, we can't think of any reason why property owners looking for a multi-million-dollar upzoning windfall would bother to spend a few bucks hiring teenagers to create fake online accounts to push upzoning in their direction. Can you?
Peak Democracy another failed program sponsored by your Enc city council. Mock them. Ridicule them. Run them out of town on a rail.
ReplyDeleteNow THAT was clever and hilarious! If only those three had "tested" PD like that way.
DeleteIt's like the clown act in the circus....
ReplyDeleteIf the council needed a reason to get rid of Vina, they have it now. But will the council do it? All the citizens labelled paranoid and conspiracy obsessed are vindicated. Our Queen of Ethics, Lisa Shaffer, should hang her head in shame for her accusatory newsletters.
ReplyDeleteThey were probably able to add Barth, Shaffer and Kranz to the user list for Vallejo so they could post, but they should have a test or demo area where you can do this behind the scenes.
ReplyDeleteIf those Screen Grabs were taken from the live site, that's pretty rookie.
-MGJ
Ok, I see how easy it is to create an identity and login. I would agree, it's not the best way to gauge public opinion on an important topic like the housing element. Of course the question still remains, with lack of public participation anyway, what is the best way to get public opinion?
ReplyDelete-MGJ
It's a fair criticism of PD. This looks to me like our council members were conducting a test to understand how easy it is to fool the software. Turns out it's as easy as clicking a button that you live in a certain neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteGiven that all three of the majority conducted the same test, using the same method, the same city, answering the same question, they clearly discussed and planned together. If they met privately to discuss testing, this could be a Brown problem (pun intended).
In the end, I'm not sure this PD issue matters, for two reasons:
1.) There is nothing new here. Those of us who have kicked the tires already knew that PD has no logic or filters to determine residency. It's entirely self-declared. Again, this isn't new information.
2.) Public comment at city council meetings suffers the same flaw. Your domicile as a speaker at City Hall is entirely self-declared. I'm pretty sure if you declared yourself a resident of Alpha Centauri, no one would care. We have had many people from outside Encinitas weigh in on Prop F recently. We know this because they declared it. Those folks could have easily declared themselves to be residents of new encinitas--there would be no way to catch them. In fact, I'd be surprised if it hasn't happened at some point.
If you are going to insist on validation of residency status, then that rule should apply equally across all modes of community input. Get ready to produce an ID before council meetings, planning meetings, commission meetings, and candidate forums.
The speaker last night said it wasn't actually Barth, Kranz, and Shaffer but somebody making fun of them.
DeleteI wouldn't give Barth, Kranz, and Shaffer so much credit to have actually tested the software before handing over Other People's Money.
Yeah, I can see that. Someone out to embarrass them for dedicating resources to a flimsy tool.
DeleteBut I still say this doesn't matter for the two reasons enumerated above. The standard shouldn't be perfection. The standard should be: does it improve what went before? To that, I'd say yes. It has the same standard for residency as speaking in person at a council meeting (self-declared), but it provides a more convenient venue to encourage more participation. The number of people responding to the silly questions so far dwarf the number of people who speak before council.
9:05,
DeleteI completely disagree.
When was the last time you saw someone drag dozens of out-of-towners pretending to be residents to a city meeting?
WAY easier to do that online, and impossible for residents to detect because the fakers are allowed to post anonymously.
At least if they try it in public, some residents might either recognize the interlopers or it would be really obvious that nobody recognizes any of them.
Hello EU
DeleteThe only time I saw the room stacked with non-residents were during the Cardiff Specific Plan council meeting and the Hall Park.
During the CSP meeting many out of town realtors, property managers and builders spoke against the citizens plan.
During the Hall Park in 2008 many Carlsbad residents, and kids, spoke in favor of a regional sports park.
Andrew Audet
During last "visioning" and dots exercise, Gaspar brought her uncle in from Carlsbad. He received dots, too.
DeleteTo say all these loopholes are unethical is an understatement. How about purposeful cheating of residents out of a voice in their future? That describes it much more accurately.
EU,
DeleteAh, I believe the Gaspar "reconsider-gate" episode included a packed house, mostly consisting of people who refused to state their place of residence.
What say you to them apples?
9:44,
DeleteI'd say that proves my point exactly. Everybody knew they were friends and family from Carlsbad and San Marcos and elsewhere.
How would you have known anything about them if they were faceless, anonymous Internet posts?
AA,
DeleteHow do you know where people live unless they self-declared?
Do you know the faces of 63,000 residents?
I'm guessing that your assessment that out-of-town interests weighed in on the CSP and the Hall Park is based on one of two sources of information:
1.) The people in question self-declared, which they could also do online. If they wanted to lie about their residency, it is just as easy to do so in person, and just as likely to go undetected.
2.) You disagreed with the speaker, and didn't know them personally, so you assume they are from out of town because that is a lazy way to dismiss their opinion without providing a cogent counter-argument.
Self-declared residency is self-declared residency. Again, if you want to insist on proof of residency, fine. But let's apply that standard to all public participation sessions.
Papers, please?
The problem here is - once again - the City's intent. ID was not checked during the dots exercise and that right there spoke volumes.
Delete9:55
DeleteThe Hall Park meeting was arranged before the 2008 election. Carlsbad Little League and Carlsbad soccer had pizza parties at the lobby and outside courtyard at city hall. They had their uniforms on.
They and thier parents had arrived in a pre-planned strategy to fill the chambers and also to sign up to speak first- they openly discussed this while eating pizza. The organizers also spoke of using the free Pizza as a lure to pull in parents and kids to stack the room.
I know this as I attended the meeting to express concerns with teh grading and haz/mat plan (the city was recently fined $430,000 for illegal discharge from the park) and funding (we were told the city had the money but in 2013 the city raided $7M and went in debt another $10 million of so)
When the Carlsbad parents, and their kids, spoke to the council it made Encinitas taxpayers need to wait. It also meant Encinitas taxpayers were not allowed in the chambers as non-residents took up the seats.
On the CSP I also attended the council meeting and the year long CSP meetings. At the council meeting the realtors, builders, social engineering advocates from Carlsbad, Orange County and San Diego all identified themselves.
Did you attend the meetings? Perhaps you might be so kind as to sahre your name, it might help bring credibility to your opinions.
It is you who assume others are lazy, I made no such comment. Kindly speak for yourself.
Andrew Audet
There were Encinitas soccer families at those meetings. Are you sure you are not mis-remembering?
DeleteAA,
DeleteI did not call you lazy, but now I will, because you didn't take the time to understand my post before responding.
I posed two ways one could conclude that someone is from out of town at public meetings. Number one is that they self-declared. Number two is that the listener is using a lazy cop out to discredit and dismiss someone they disagree with.
Clearly, by your post, your conclusions were all drawn from number one; the speakers were open about their non-resident status. Ergo, you were not lazy.
That's true, right up until the moment you decided to make a silly accusation without understanding the post you were responding to.
Lazy.
11:44
DeleteThere were sports people from Encinitas, they should be there, it's their city, their tax dollars.
There were also sports teams from Carlsbad, with their shirts on, attending a pizza party, and as they discussed strategy, they laid it all out- 90 foot lights, free pizza to draw mom and dad, stack the room at 5:00 pm, hand in speaker slips at 4:00 pm-
Thank you for sharing.
Andrew Audet
1:18 it was you who assumed others were lazy. If you want to judge others it is certainly your opinion to do so, I'd rather to stick to facts. Your opinion would have more credibility if you kindly shared your name.
DeleteAndrew Audet
AA,
DeleteRe: "it was you who assumed others were lazy."
Nope. Prove it. I said EITHER speakers self-declare their out of town status OR the listener could be lazy. Maybe it's true that everyone uses option one, and no one uses option two--I don't know.
Be very specific, and use my exact words in context to show exactly who I assumed was lazy (other than you, you misrepresenting hack).
I will gladly appologize to the specific person if you can identify them.
"the listener could be lazy" -
DeleteBarth, Kranz and Shaffer would themselves test Peak Democracy to demonstrate its faults? Who's kidding whom?
ReplyDeleteGus is running the council and he not only didn't test it, but he didn't read the terms of the contract. Fire Gus NOW!
ReplyDeleteGiven the bit about the referendum effect, I'd say Vina knew exactly what he was buying.
ReplyDelete7:25AM if Shaffer, Kranz and Barth did test PD and found this breach and said nothing, then the deceit is even more telling.
ReplyDeleteMurphy says this is THE resident opinion tool for the housing element update. You have to wonder why the city is so willing to go with something so easily manipulated, although I personally don't wonder. They are manufacturing just what they want as an outcome.
ReplyDeleteThe Housing Update is not some frivolous poll. People will be giving input on the future of the city and what they'd like to see. To treat residents so cavalierly from the beginning does not bode well for the rest of the Update "process."
This is why we always needed a statistically reliable and valid survey. Council said it cost too much. Citizens said they would do it for free. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteEven if they funded it: the people here would reject it.
Delete9:05 said the speaker last night was "out to embarrass" Shaffer and Kranz for voting for such a "flimsy" tool. The speaker was out to highlight the dangers of this tool that is the ONLY input tool offered residents, not embarrass anyone.
ReplyDeleteShaffer, instead of saying "hold on, what ARE we doing here?" (or any of the other council members, for that matter), proposed using Peak for other surveys. She is full steam ahead, facts be damned. She is on a single-minded mission to screw residents, right along with her four other like-minded buddies up there.
Instead of trying to brush this off as something meant to "embarrass," why don't you look at the message and not blame the messenger, 9:05? Apologist for Kranz and Shaffer or one of them posting themselves, methinks.
9:05 also says the standard shouldn't be perfection. Sorry, but for something like the housing element update, the city has to do a lot better than this. If it isn't clear manipulation, it sure gives the appearance. Peak should be dropped like a hot rock. Egg on all the council faces for allowing Vina to choose this tool.
DeleteWould you feel better if the registration process for a PD account included a visit to City Hall where they checked your ID and validated your identity and address?
DeleteMy guess is no. My guess is that most people would complain that the city was using the identity step to discourage participation, to track comments, to target individuals for retaliation.
Am I right?
Damned if you do validate residency; damned if you don't.
The real underlying objection is that if it becomes easier for the masses to participate, then the kooky views of a few obsessive paranoid gadflies will be diluted.
Boom.
(drops the mic)
No, the real objection is city staff and council are perpetrating a fraud.
DeleteYou have to prove residency to vote, right?
12:49 you're either a shill or sock puppet. This thing is a scam and you know it.
Delete12:49, have you been asleep all this time? The PD tool DOES track your identity, IP address, and browser information. That will discourage participation and that will increase the opportunity for retaliation by the city toward residents.
DeleteGo boom yourself.
Note 12:49's adoption of Shaffer and Blakespear's attempts to marginalize long-time city watchers by labeling them paranoid. I call sock puppet, too!
DeleteWell, there is a lot of paranoia on this board. If you don't like PD, don't use it, but a lot of things out there track your IP, location etc. Why am I getting Jennifer Hammler videos on Youtube, why are people seeing that ad on their cellphones. Because they're being tracked.
DeleteTechnology right now has outpaced our ability to regulate it vis a vis privacy concerns. This is part of a larger issue we as a society face.
PD is both things, a ways to do more surveys AND a way to gain information on residents, it depends. Personally, think they overpaid,d something better could be built in-house with more transparency.
But, you are being watched, probably by the people higher up the chain....
4:13,
DeleteRight. I forgot.
So PD is simultaneously:
Anonymous, to allow non-residents to manipulate our domestic affairs, so to speak.
AND
Machiavellian, to monitor track and control your inner-most thoughts and feelings.
Brilliant.
Question: how do you manage the effects of cognitive dissonance so well?
6:36PM That's a little long for Haiku poetry, but I enjoyed it.
DeletePeak Democracy is obviously a tool designed to manipulate input and let its perpetrators go with their preconceived plan while claiming to follow the public's will. The woman from San Francisco who sales-talked Peak Democracy to the council said as much. What she said in public was backed up by her email exchange with Vina.
ReplyDeleteThe most astonishing thing about the whole episode is the city and Peak Democracy have as much as openly said, "This is our scam to get the housing element passed in the form we want."
I have a suggestion. Everyone ignore the Peak Democracy questions and the city will get zero response and realize how much money they wasted on a manipulative poll.
ReplyDeleteWe have the right and the power to mess this up. Don't go on the website and don't take the poll.
Amen,it is that simple.....
DeleteGreat idea: only let the developers decide by their participation. Mensa? No.
Delete2:33
DeleteHow very stupid.
Others will participate and help make decissions for our future.
You will not and, perhaps, that is a good thing.
9:05 You don't get it. It is already rigged in favor of more development. Your input will mean nothing.
Delete2:33-Or better yet, mess it up with a lot of bogus posts, with names like Andreen, Stocks, Meyer, Harwood, Gaspar, well you all get my drift. It cannot be that hard to mess with it.
ReplyDeleteI like 3:18's idea because a lot of people I know think that Peak Democracy is the cat's meow. So, if we don't pst something they win. I say screw with it.
DeleteProving it always takes less energy to f--k something up than to build something useful. You have the Second Law of Thermodynamics on your side.
DeleteThen again, you could choose NOT to be a jackass.
3:32- And your suggestion would be what? People volunteered to set up something for the City for free. And, these were people who know how to design a true sampling, that would be both statistically reliable and valid. They were told NO, we want to have PeakDemocracy, even though we know it is to a scientific sample. It would have been nice to see what citizens could do, but it didn't happen. Instead the City paid to have a non-scientific sample that can obviously be messed with. Which one do you think would have been a better use of city resources?
DeleteSorry, should have said "Peak Democracy is not a scientific sampling".
DeleteThe city is never going to accept someone building something like that at home, so to speak. They like the dog and pony show and alleged track record of someone like PD. That would require thinking outside the box.
DeleteGuess I will set up a business, based in Encinitas, so the City can get the money, and then suggest doing sampling for them at a lot less than PD charges. I guarantee you it would be a true sample. However, if the CIty didn't like it, they would find fault in it. Think Hall property and soil contamination, or Rossini Creek.
DeleteAnd you still have the Peak owner telling cities on the side how to make residents believe their input counts, but not really. Major red flag right there. This software was written a particular way for a reason, and the PD owner is not shy about saying so.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes sense, based on who he's selling it to. He's not going to get a lot of sales unless he taylor's the product and the pitch to the customer. Good old capitalism at work, even in Berkeley.
DeleteSo you're saying the customer (Encinitas) is buying a mockery of democracy. The point of WC's thread is that the users should be in on the joke, too.
DeleteThe city staff and council are there to represent citizens above themselves. WE are the paying customers and the lab subjects in this little arrangement. PD and Vina et al are creating a program to represent their wishes of increasing revenue and stabilizing pensions and sending US the TAXPAYERS the bill!
Delete4:13- If Peak Democracy monitors your IP address how is it that Barth and Kranz's names ended up on the Vallejo survey? The owner of Peak Democracy, in a conversation with me, said they were not monitoring it at all. The City could do it if they wanted, but that wasn't part of the contract. So, essentially anyone can post their thoughts on issues. For some reason, that scares me. Most of the developers don't live in Encinitas. Harwood lives in RSF. He only wants to build in Encinitas.
ReplyDeletePeak monitors your IP, it doesn't reject your post. Based on what the owner has written about his tool, I wouldn't believe a word he says. His "Referendum Effect" article is chilling.
DeleteAnd based on the secrecy with which Vina runs the city, you can take your chances that the city won't monitor and track your input. I certainly won't.
DeleteI live in Olivenhain and Harwood was involve in the purchase of my home-nice guy. Which developer or realtor did you buy your home from. Don't be such a blatant hypocrite!
ReplyDeleteHarwood can only be described as predatory. Had you heard him as a member on the ERAC, you would not find him at all nice. He is all about forcing high density wherever possible whether residents want it or not, and is not at all sensitive to community character. Predictably, he strongly opposed Prop A.
DeleteYes, he lives in RSF. To put it indelicately: Harwood doesn't shit where he lives.
Wow! That is total bullshit. Sounds like someone has an English as a second language problem.
DeleteYou have a problem with the grammar?
Delete7:41 I have no problem with the way you posted your comment. There are some strange people who feel the need to scold and correct people because there is actually something wrong with them.
DeleteThanks for sharing.
How many realtors do you know that act like a tool while they're showing your home? It's a job, and act, the smile, the handshake.
ReplyDeleteBehind the scenes he is one of the major forces behind density bonus projects, community destroying projects and more. He's not one of the shining lights of community concern, sorry.
Harwood is a nice guy, as long as he gets what he wants. No question about it. But, make no mistake in thinking he doesn't want to build here. He does, and if at all possible he will.
ReplyDeleteDevelopers develop, and he's connected for that reason. He doesn't just show up at meetings for no reason.
DeleteMost developers don't go around telling residents "your neighborhood will probably be upzoned, like it or not." They don't cause other developers to introduce themselves with "Don't worry, I'm not like Doug Harwood."
DeleteI think it is time folks to go as public with PD as possible. Let the residents know they are being scammed. All at the hands of our very own city council. Let's unite and fight. Who knows, maybe a lawsuit might happen if the council insists on shoving this down our throats? I think the city will be in for a big surprise. All supporters of PD will come crashing down in flames. Just wait and see. The ball has started rolling and soon this will be the lead scandal in Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteI think it's time to ignore Peak Democracy. The city is going to do whatever they will with or without any input from us. That's the way Vina works.
Delete8:44 is right, though: it's also time to tell everyone you know just what the city is trying to perpetrate on us in the name of "outreach." The plan is to manipulate the data, make it fit what they already know they want, then tell residents "This is what you wanted."
DeleteHarwood like most developers are tools. Shit in Encinitas and everywhere else and live in RSF and Del Mar where they will not let them them shit without strict permits.
ReplyDeleteSame can be said about Pam Slater's husband Hershel. Has anyone ever asked him how he made all of his money (big time developer) before he left his wife?
ReplyDeleteI knew his first wife and she was a very nice person. Too bad Slater had her claws out for him.
DeletePrice may have made his money in development - no shame there - but to try to draw a comparison between him and Harwood is about as off as you can get. Price is a decent human being....
DeleteUnless you have examples of Price threatening residents with upzoning and laying plans in public to run roughshod over communities by overbuilding, then "the same thing" may not be said of Price.
And btw, the wife comments, both of them? Vintage Mikey Andreen. Quit talking to yourself and get back in yer hole.
That's not how Andreen writes, it would be five times as long and rambling. All this personal stuff makes everyone on the board look bad...
DeletePrice the same as hardwood shits on other peoples communities and then lives in tightly regulated and elite Del Mar and Rancho Sante Fe. Both are a sad joke and I bet inside do not feel to good about their life. I not I wouldn't if I were them. I always try and live by leave this earth a better place then when I got here. Both are failing that task. Plus price is not a very smart guy. His antics in Del Mar show that he has little common sense.
ReplyDeleteSomething about the way you express yourself has the word "antics" written all over it.
DeleteThe one thing that City Council could do to really improve this City is to hire a real City Manager and get rid of this sad joke that was Government raised on government welfare and has no real world experience. Wake up City Council!
ReplyDeleteMost city managers you're going to hire will have been city managers somewhere else, ie another city, ie in government. Government is not private enterprise, there are different rules. You just need the best person you can get, that's it...Guys like Kerry Miller, Phil Cotton, Gus Vina to a lesser extent just don't have the skills.
ReplyDeleteI've got say that after watching the city council meeting this past Weds. I no long have much faith in Kranz's platform. When he left beekeeping, he kept bios passion alive, as could be seen this past Weds. when an actually woman bee told the council of all good things relating to bees. I vote at the ballot box, and was going to vote for Kranz. Now I have to say I am a Cameron voter.
ReplyDeleteYou've joined the trend, 2:41. As the campaign has progressed and the candidates and their positions, records, funders, scandals and intentions have become better known, there's been a steady defection away from others and to Cameron and Graboi. Those two really are best for the Encinitas that most residents want.
ReplyDeleteNot Sheila. Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. People are confusing the Sheila of 15 years ago with the current Sheila. In short, can she be counted on to be at council meetings were she to win, does she have the emotional stability to withstand the pressure?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely NOT!
DeleteOh, stop already with the "old, 15 years ago Sheila" bit. Major snore. I'm more worried about the favors owed by the other two and who's handling them.
DeleteRight on 10:43
DeleteEveryone is leaving Kranz and going to Cameron.
ReplyDeleteNo
ReplyDeleteEveryone? Really? I didn't know you spoke for me?
ReplyDeleteI voted for Kranz for council but I just can't vote for him after PV but that doesn't mean I'm just going to vote for Cameron, in fact I don't wan't to vote for any of the others either.
The election for a weak Mayor makes no sense at all to me. A complete wast of time and energy.
I think that it would be much better to have 5 true representatives of our 5 communities on our council and go back to the way it was and pass the weak Mayor duties forward to the next representative every year.
Agree.
DeleteThe bar scene supported by Kranz and Gaspar is the final straw. Mailed in my ballot with votes for Julie Graboi and Sheila Cameron. Easiest decision ever, Kranz and Gaspar are turning us into a Pacific Beach party scene swiftly. Wander downtown after 10pm tomorrow night and you will know firsthand why they are out of touch.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely disgusted that the bar owners are giving to Gaspar's campaign. That shows me what kind of a person she truly is. Her colors are finally showing and she can't keep hiding behind that fake smile for too much longer.
DeleteDennis Holtz made some great remarks at the council meeting regarding who is giving to her campaign. Most of them are out of town people, bar owners, developers. She is a sheep in wolf's clothing in my opinion.
None of my friends will be voting for Gaspar.
We want real change at city hall. Cameron and Graboi are the ones to put in office this time.
Dennis Holz historically has flacked for the Self Realization Fellowship. In this case he poses as to be assisting Kranz, but what it appears he is really doing is continuing in paid service to his church while they continue to try and buy up downtown Encinitas for a song which indeed will quiet the neighborhoods, but will not generate sales-tax.
DeleteBesides, Holz is one of the three votes for the 'Thornburg Exception' that resulted in several hundred thousands of tax-payer dollars that Sheila Cameron 'decided' the City owed a family building a custom home in Olivenhain whom according to reports secretly broke into the sewer lines without legal authority, botched it and then when discovered brazenly blamed the city staff.
Because Cameron was/is so notoriously anti-staff, she took up for the mansion-builder.
Holz also assisted Cameron and Guerin in other tax-dollar giveaways: hence, today he is a one-term councilman who was often accused by peers of 'situational ethics' which is better than today's 'council majority' that operate under 'no ethics'.
Countdown to a Barth-less Council.
As Barth, Shaffer and even Muir was verbally aggressive in expecting downtown improvement. Kranz and Gaspar were noticeably silent. Kranz even asked a question that he knew would support the bar owners.
ReplyDelete7:40 that is politicla move Stocks used to do that Kranz has adopted, so transprent. kran the liar did it during the Pacific View hearings when he asked Jay Lembach about finance, knowing Lembah would lie
DeleteStocks did the same exact thing during the Hall Park financing
KRanz- one and done, I will walk neighborhoods against him in 2016
all this chatter doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteVotes are already cast… now its time to wait and see what November brings.
My prediction is Plastic Gaspar - Too bad we can't Bag It!
8:26 NO, the votes are not already cast, and YES this talk does matter and makes a difference.
ReplyDeleteSome people have finally become aware who is backing Gaspar and they have changed their vote because of it. That's a good start. I see more votes for Cameron and Graboi.
Even if Gaspar squeaks in, she will be as effective as she is now, which in blunt terms is NOT EFFECTIVE at all.
Well, yeah, Catherine is the hand-picked replacement for Barth.
DeleteOk 9:19. Let's see
ReplyDeleteOver 70% of the Council votes in this tiny middle election cycle have already been sent. The Crazy Cameron run was totally ineffective and shows how fricken stupid Cameron and Slater-Price really are. What Losers!!! Haaa Haaa Haaaa.
ReplyDeleteThere poor showing will show the public what a joke the people of Encinitas really think about these two losers. They are the quintessential old dogs that never learned any tricks. Just old dogs. Haaaa!
Since 56% of Encinitas voters voted absentee in 2012, how is it possible that "over 70% of the Council votes in this tiny middle election cycle have already been sent"?
ReplyDeleteWhy don't we require any speaker at council meetings to prove their residency before speaking. If they claim they're a resident then they have to provide their address with valid proof such as a drivers license. We can call it Speaker ID. If the person couldn't prove they were a resident they would still be allowed to speak but they couldn't claim to be a resident of Encinitas. Then we can just ignore what they say because they don't count.
ReplyDeletePam Slater-Price isn't a resident anymore, why do we care what she thinks? Has her husband ever lived in Encinitas? After all, the only important opinions that we care about are the small number of people who show up time after time at council meetings. God forbid that something like Peak Democracy expand the input from outside that circle.
One way to ensure that residents are accurately identified in Peak Democracy is to require a validation process that certifies that the name and address are valid before use. Then when someone does a public records request we'll know what you think.
IP addresses will be recognized and noted: the assumed names won't matter. The real danger to the folks on this blog and Vina's 28 is that their zealotry might be overwhelmed by other opinions. I can understand why you would be so scared.
Delete"might be overwhelmed by other opinions."
Delete... of fictitious characters created by developers.
Most people don't have a permanent IP address. To get one you are usually charged extra but if you don't have any need to reach your computer from the Internet, a permanent IP address is unnecessary.
DeleteWhen you start up your computer your ISP gives you one of its IP addresses from a pool. Your computer is awarded the address for a period of time and may be assigned a different address if there is a considerable gap between uses.
Also, there may be multiple registered voters at one location so PD needs to be able to handle that. Finally, IP addresses are assigned to ISP's in groups and don't necessarily correspond to geography or at least political subdivisions. Besides, Encinitas property owners and business owners who live outside the city have a right to weigh in on the HE.
The point is Peak Democracy has no way to correctly ID the input. It is not a representative sample of public opinion. Further, as presented by the San Francisco woman, Peak Democracy seems to be designed to manipulate input so governments can claim the public supports what governments want to do.
ReplyDeleteA relative handful of people speak at council meetings. They ID themselves by name and hometown. If you pay attention, it would be easy to know if a speaker is lying about her/his name and hometown. It rarely happens, if ever.
The same small circle of people speak at most council meetings. They are supplemented by additional speakers of various numbers depending on the topic. The numbers vary as do the speakers, although there appears to a few who regularly show up on controversial topics to slightly expand the small circle of regulars. Even at their highest numbers, this expanded small circle of regulars only represent a small percentage of registered voters in Encinitas which is close to 40,000. Barely 1%, if that.
DeleteI can't tell which is the reason for the strong push back here on Peak Democracy. One, you're afraid that expanding the input will diminish whatever influence you have or two, you're convinced that the city will manipulate the Peak Democracy results to counter the opinions held here. I think it's both because that way you can negate the results before it happens, especially if the results are contrary to yours. You're trying to have it both ways.
2:50 You're still misconstruing one point and missing the other.
DeletePeople who speak at council meetings don't necessarily influence the council's decisions. If you and others think they do, you could show up and disagree.
Peak Democracy is a self-admitted tool to manipulate input, use it to distort the public's views and to use those twisted views to justify what the city already decided to do. It was openly sold on that basis.
4:40 PM
Delete"Peak Democracy is a self-admitted tool to manipulate input, use it to distort the public's views and to use those twisted views to justify what the city already decided to do. It was openly sold on that basis."
Yep, you're afraid of what it might show so you're trying to disqualify the results beforehand. I love the "self-admitted" part. And "distort the public's view"? Define public. It's a lot more than the people who comment here and maybe most of those people don't agree with you. Who knows, maybe they do.
Also, if you think the people showing up at council don't have an impact just look at density bonus. The council reacted to the speakers at the meetings and acted hastily. Now we have a lawsuit we have to defend.
Maybe you think if the council doesn't take your full position then there is no effect but that's shortsighted.
5:56 You must have missed the sales pitch by the PD woman and her email exchange with Vina. PD was explicitly sold on its ability to produce the results the city wants.
DeleteIf the city wants to ascertain the public's views, they should commission a professionally conducted poll rather than buying a tool that's designed to produce the results the city wants.
The council made the right decisions about density bonus. The BIA's suit is weak, and they will lose.
7:27 PM
DeleteYou are just afraid of what the results will be. I would generously estimate that between the number of people who post here and those that regularly speak at council meeting (some of whom are the same people), there are, at best, somewhere in the neighborhood of 100-200 people. Probably fewer but even if it's 200 that is still less than 1 percent of Encinitas registered voters.
Hardly a voice of the people.
A short survey that could be sent to every household in Encinitas could be prepared by citizen volunteers or graduate students and professors that would use best practices and standard protocols. The big problem with Peak Democracy and every other program that our city has selected is that they all have been messed with in unethical ways. In fact, they won't say how they got the answers that they did--which on its own is another reason to throw out the information.
Delete12:10
DeleteYou're making presumptions that simply aren't true. That reveals your prejudices. The truth is the city won't commission objective professional polls because the staff and council know what the results would be. They don't want the truth revealed.
That's why there's a history of manipulating and misrepresenting past surveys, and it explains why they want to continue their dishonesty with Peak Democracy. The latest action fits the pattern.
4:41 PM
DeleteIf you're referring to 12:01 then that's me. And I do support an unbiased sample survey but at the end of the HE outreach process to see how well the results track with the input given. While sample surveys can capture current opinions if they are constructed properly, they aren't very good at providing multiple suggestions and alternatives.
PD isn't a sample survey instrument and never was intended to be.
5:23 —
DeleteHave you read the WCV post and seen the screens above this stack of comments? Have you seen that "Tony Kranz," "Lisa Shaffer" and "Teresa Barth" weighed in as Vallejo residents on questions posed through Peak Democracy for that city?
If you have, it's difficult to understand how you can be touting Peak Democracy in Encinitas and attributing any legitimacy or value to whatever results it produces.
We elect people to represent us. If we don't like them, we should elect new council member. It's really that simple! Those that complain should elect those who most likely represents their views or run for office themself.
ReplyDeleteVote NO on ALL bonds!!! It's YOUR money not the politicians.
ReplyDelete2:50- How do you know that the same people are the only ones to present at the City Council? Do you watch from home? If so, why don't you come down to City Hall and express your opinion. You may even be right that it is the same people.My question to you is: "Why do they do it?" Do you think they don't have lives, or anything better to do? Do you think that they are just wasting their time, because we already know why the Council is going to do? Why would a group of possibly the same people keep coming back for more insults from the City Council? Maybe they are bored, stupid, have no life, or just maybe, they want to make a difference. So, why don't you either shut up about who speaks, or come speak for yourself in front of the Council. The choice is yours.
ReplyDelete