Ojai Ballot Initiatives: Guest Editorial & Rebuttal
The following editorial is from Ojai citizen and City Council candidate Dennis Leary, addressing the ballot initiative issue. Read, digest and comment...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An epic struggle is taking shape in Ojai, presaging a second American Revolution. In the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, "When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve Political Bands..." Some people of Ojai are calling Ojai politics a constitutional crisis, and intend to dissolve the political bands which are destroying their freedoms. They are planning a second Boston Tea Party to show they will not be "taxed" unfairly.
Ojai's political crisis mirrors the American political crisis. On this feastday of Saint Francis of Assisi, October 4, 2006, I am founding the Red Brown and Blue political party to address the political and constitutional crisis in America, as Francis once addressed the crisis in the medieval church-state. More later about the national party.
For now, in Ojai, I am non-partison. The primary issue here and now is first amendment rights. Without freedom of speech, and the means to be fairly heard, all other rights and powers crumble. The constitutional crisis in Ojai (and the U.S.) revolves around the core issue of "speaking truth to power."
Mr. David Bury, the mayor of Ojai, wrote a guest editorial entitled "Taking the Initiative." I think I can safely assume that this is the rehearsed and pre-prepared, official party line of the present leadership of Ojai, represented by the city council of 5, and their manager and attorney (= council of 7). These seven individuals are using the principal vehicle of communication in Ojai, the Ojai Valley News, for expressing and defending their policies, with a sort of bully pulpit.
In the interest of first amendment rights, equal opportunity, and civic discourse, the citizens of Ojai deserve a response to balance the present leadership's version of truth, so the voters can make an informed choice. I will open the discussion on Ojai's constitutional crisis by "Taking the Initiative" to the next level of understanding.
The council of 7 intends to "set the record straight" on "proper form." They believe that some people are "motivated through a misunderstanding [read understanding] or something else [read love for truth, although the council of 7 imagines more sinister motives]." Mr. Bury correctly identifies the constitutional crisis as "stifling democracy," but adds that "nothing could be further from the truth." I believe, on the other hand, that "stifling democracy" could not be closer to the truth, with regard to the council's actions.
Mr. Bury defines initiatives as "petitions to the government to either enact a proposed law directly, or to submit the proposed law for voter approval." The California Constitution states: "The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them." Mr. Bury incorrectly substitutes "petition" for "power," weakening the power of the people.
Mr. Bury goes on to make an unsubstantiated, speculative assertion that "an initiative must enact a specific law (ordinance), or make a specific change to plans, regulations, etc.," citing an unnamed, undocumented, and possibly non-existent state provision. The only authority Mr. Bury cites is the "opinion of the city attorney," which citation is out of order on the basis of testifying on one's own behalf, and on behalf of the council of 7. Such appeals to the authority of one's own self are self-serving, circular arguments, that hold no water and serve no useful purpose.
Mr. Bury's unproven assumptions are that the initiatives are "improper," "do not propose any specific statute or ordinance," "are unclear," and require actions that "must be taken if they were to be adopted." He further assumes a strawman argument that the initiatives are "overly general" and need "specific ordinances attached," and "have not been clearly defined." [He is blowing a smokescreen].
In Mr. Furchenicht's letter of 9/11 to Mr. Widders, he points out that Proposition 8, in 1982, used nearly identical language to his present initiatives, in directing the legislature to adopt a "concept." Mr. Furchenicht sent copies to the council of 7, so apparently they choose to ignore this information. Proposition 8 is now state law.
The council of 5 makes an unwarranted assumption that Mr. Furchtenicht needed "to re-write and re-submit his initiatives." Why? "...to meet our understanding," (as if the council of 5's understanding supercedes the state law). If the citizen did not bend to their will, the council threatened to go to court, which they did on Sept. 25. When the news first broke at the Sept. 26th council meeting, the council of 7 denied that there was a lawsuit and that it was asking for money. [Both false assertions].
The council of 7 justify their intimidation of an Ojai citizen, and his wife and two small daughters, and unnamed DOES 1-50 as "co-conspirators," stating "This action is being taken to clarify the process, not obstruct the citizen's right to petition," ignoring the fact that the court has already clarified the process. This self-serving assertion clearly does
"obstruct the citizen's right to petition," despite the denial. Just stating something in your own defense, without evidence, does not make it true, no matter how many times or how loud you say it.
Apparently, the council of 7 power complex has not done its homework. The courts have already answered the questions about pre-election challenges, such as the council's. In the California Bar Journal (2006), J. Clark Kelso, summarizes the court's rulings on actions such as Mr. Widders' lawsuit: "The Supreme Court's brief docket orders in these two cases send an unmistakable message that pre-election judicial review of initiatives is strongly is favored, almost to the point of unavailability... the court's pre-election review cases and cases involving post-election interpretation of initiatives have always focused on the voters' likely intentions and reasonable expectations. Moreover, every effort has been made to give voters the opportunity to exercise the franchise. It is hard to argue with this preference when California's Constitution expressly provides that 'all political power is inherent in the people.' (Cal. Const., Art II, Section 1).
As far as wasting money, who is going to pay for Mr. Widders' time if this constitutional issue drags Ojai through the courts, with the almost certain result that Ojai will lose? The council of 7 is "taxing" the citizens of Ojai unfairly, like the British did the colonists. Mr. Widders is in effect giving himself a job, at the city's expense.
Mr. Bury, on behalf of the council of 7, continues to speculate, with the evidence of actions contradicting his well rehearsed words, that this matter "has nothing to do with the merits of the substance of the proposed initiatives." Me thinks he protesteth too much. If the power complex of 7 really thinks that, why didn't they simply process the initiatives, comply with the law and common practice, and save the city money by getting the initiatives in on time for the Nov. 7 election? The only reasonable explanation, which contradicts their rationalizations, is that they really do not want the initiatives on housing and business to go on the ballot.
Actions speak louder than words. The council of 7 has repeatedly said they can't (read won't) do what the people want in regard to the initiatives, Mallory Way, Frostie, Los Arboles, the concerts, the Brown Act, etc. That's why we have a constitutional crisis here in Ojai. The will of the people is being subverted in favor of special interests.
Contrary to what Mr. Bury states, the rules are already clear. The power complex of 7 is trying to confuse the rules so they don't have to do what the rules say, so they can retain their power. That's what power complexes do, and the council of 7 is no exception.
The true facts are that Mr. Furchtenicht's initiatives are in proper form, and meet all the requirements of the law. He has thirty days to respond to the city lawsuit, and when he does, we will see the whole picture clearly. We will see how the city has conspired to deprive its own citizens of their freedoms, and how the council of 7 has ignored and misrepresented the true facts. We will understand why citizens are so angry, and why they will have another Boston Tea Party, if the injustice continues. They are being taxed without representation. They and the truth are being misrepresented. Their elected representatives are serving special interests, particularly their own power needs. This constitutional crisis in Ojai is, of course, being denied and sugared over with honeyed words, but the truth will out, as it did in 1776.
According to the California Constitution, "The initiative is the power of the electors to propose...amendments" to their constitution. The Ojai constitution is the general plan and ordinances. Mr. Furchenicht's initiatives do in fact "propose amendments" to the ordinances. They state that "The people of the City of Ojai do ordain [note the word relationship to order and ordinance] as follows: The City Council is hereby directed to...take measures [similar to ordinances] ...and adopt such measures... If the ordinance [note the word ordinance] is not adopted, this ordinance [please note the word] be submitted..." This language is used for both initiatives.
Mr. Furchenicht will demonstrate in his response to the city's lawsuit that the constitution and case law require that the city attorney process a citizen's initiatives [even if the form is incorrect, which it is not]. All Mr. Widders was supposed to do was give them a title and summary, not block them. Instead, the council of 7 is threatening to obstruct justice, ruin an Ojai family, and possibly 50 other John and Jane DOES, as "co-conspirators." Why? Just to maintain the power of 7 people, at the expense of 8000?
Any fair minded person can see that this is unfair, unjust, cruel, and unconstitutional. Those blinded by their own power complex cannot see straight, or are afraid to. Because of their blindness and willfulness, they threaten to drag the city into financial ruin, moral disgrace, and civil unrest.
Right across the page from Mr. Bury's guest editorial is the following quote: "A reader sends a thumbs-down to Dennis Leary for threatening a lawsuit. How many votes do you think you will get by suing the city of Ojai?" I put principle above politics, and the voters above votes. If I win a judgement, I will forgive the city its part. One of the council of 7 publicly called me "beyond contempt," using city time and tax dollars to do so. I need to stand up to this intimidation, using the only language which power complexes understand, power and money. These same unfair tactics were used four years ago, and I must prevent it now for the good of Ojai. What would you do if someone in public office, using your tax dollars, called you, your child or mother "beyond contempt"? Let the powers-that-be run over you? All the power complex has to do is apologize, and the matter will be settled. However, power complexes are not known for their tolerance, humility or truthfulness. They're in power because of their power tactics.
As far as I'm concerned, none of this is personal. I'm just doing city business. I like the council of 7 as persons and personalities. I have no trouble socializing with them or shaking their hand. It's the power complex which controls them that I challenge on the issues. Mr. Busy is right about one thing, as evidenced by the title to his guest editorial. Ojai citizens are now "Taking the Initiative."
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Leary
| Permalink | author bio | 
Comments (22)
Yet how do you justify the threat of a $10 million lawsuit and have you filed it?
Comment #1 Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2006 04:02 PM
Good question by Anonymous. How do I justify the threat of a $10 million lawsuit and have I filed it?
I have not filed it. I am asking for an apology, which would cure the matter, and have given reasonable time to do so. In my mind, reasonable time would be shortly after the election. At that time, I will decide whether it is reasonable to file a suit, depending if an apology has been received, the likelihood of getting past demurrers, and getting it to a jury. If I can get it to a jury, I have an excellent chance of winning.
Justifications include, but are not limited to: 1) the seriousness of the matter, 2) damage to Ojai in excess of $10M over many years, if candidates of my persuasion are unfairly marginalized by libel, and thereby are prevented from representing the true majority of citizens, 3) precedent setting value; this same thing happened four years ago, and will continue if not effectively challenged, 4) loss of other options; petitions, pleas at council, public letters, private talk do not get results for what I perceive is the majority's desires and rightful needs, 5) reality based language; power complexes understand the language of power and money, and ignore "soft" talk, 6) need to take a strong bargaining position, and asking for more than would probably be awarded, with the option of negotiating; I ask for a reasonable and appropriate apology, and I would forgive the city any judgement I would win; and I reserve judgement on the individuals involved, 7) the good of Ojai demands that potential public servants like myself be strong, and unwilling to be intimidated and rolled over by forces that would do the same to Ojai as a whole, 8) the truth: in my view, $10M is a reasonable sum, considering what is at stake; imagine, the whole future of Ojai depends on this fall election, and the powers-that-be know that, which is why they are so aggressive in their strategic decisions, to discredit the opposition.
Comment #2 Posted by: Dennis Leary | October 6, 2006 08:38 AM
Tyler,
Thanks for posting my response to Mayor Bury. It will interesting if he, or anyone rebuts my rebuttal. If not, that says something, too.
There are a couple of typos I'd like to correct.
1) The last sentence of paragraph 15, beginning with "Mr. Bury on behalf...": "really do want" is incorrect and should be "really do NOT want". 2) Paragraph 8 should read "Mr. Bury goes "on," not "no," although "no" sort of fits too.
Comment #3 Posted by: Dennis Leary | October 6, 2006 08:49 AM
Dennis, I am curious, this $10 million for "damage to Ojai," but it would go to you if you win, yes?
Comment #4 Posted by: Lisa Snider | October 6, 2006 08:53 AM
Dennis - you're welcome - changes have been made.
Comment #5 Posted by: Tyler | October 6, 2006 09:20 AM
Lisa,
If I sue, I would sue for damages to myself and Ojai. I can only speculate about what a jury would award to myself and/or Ojai. The city, Mr. Widders, and Ms. Horgan would be named as defendants. Would the city have to pay its citizens? me? Would Mr. Widders or Ms. Horgan have to pay the city, me? Who knows? The matter could be cured with an apology, and we could avoid lawsuits entirely. I might begin the process of reconciliation and conversation by apologizing myself, for saying the council "murdered" Frostie. It was clearly meant as a metaphor, which Ms. Horgan confirmed by saying Frostie was not a person. Of course, Frostie the business or Frostie the Snowman are not persons. She apparently took the metaphor personally, which is unfortunate, and personally attacked me. I don't see how her words "beyond contempt" etc. can be construed as metaphors, but perhaps that is how she perceives them. My threatened lawsuit of $10M illustrates the point that this business of suing is serious, and in retrospect, seems precognitive, as to the city's now suing Jeff and 50 DOES for proposing initiatives. I am trying to get at the underlying issues which the lawsuits uncover. One issue which is surfacing in my mind is the manner in which we communicate. There is a great deal of fear, mistrust, defensiveness and appeals to emotion going on. I think it's great because it is surfacing stuff in our community, and we'll all be the better off if we can deal with this stuff. Fortunately, we have this forum to converse. I would love to engage in real conversation with the council of 7. That term perhaps is not fair, so let me amend it to the individuals involved. The problem is that they have withdrawn from meaningful conversation by initiating this lawsuit. They say they can't speak about the issues, first, because of the Brown Act, and now because of the pending litigation. I suspect there are deeper reasons for their non-communication, like fear of peer pressure. We all have first amendment rights to speak the truth as we see it, as long as we don't hurt others by libel, or reveal things that are unsafe. I think the council and its counsel, and manager want to feel they are doing a good job for the city, and probably don't understand why citizens are so angry with them, just as we don't understand why they don't actually do right by the city. It comes down to communication, and what the buddhists call "right understanding." I hope that we are at a beginning stage of arguing and defending our turf, which will be superceded by a more mutual tolerance and less judgemental, legal defenses as the conversation continues. I imagine that one or the other of the council of 7 has considered breaking with the group think, and speaking up as an individual, under the first amendment, providing that legal constrictions be honored, but lacks the clarity or courage to do so at this point. However, that could change. For my part, this has been a great experience in understanding my strengths and weaknesses, and in enhancing my psychological and spiritual growth. Politics is really quite good for my health, which surprises me, as I formerly thought politics was the lowest of the arts. Actually, I am beginning to sense it is the highest art, the skill of taking compost and turning it into food. I marvel at what politics can do. It's almost as interesting as religion, and equally as challenging. I view life as evolutionary progress through stages, with Ojai at last entering into real dialogue and growth to higher stages. I think back to the time of Jefferson, and how much they accomplished writing pamphlets. With the internet now, that process is speeded up exponentially. If we can draw all elements of the community into this discussion, and reduce fears of the law and being sued, or running out of money, or being ridiculed, etc., we can build community right here on this site, and then in this small town, actually meet the real person in the flesh, having the best of both worlds meet, the real and virtual. I have found it empowering to express myself by running for council. I see the truth, it's not whether you win or lose that counts, but that you played the game. As Lennie says, if we win, it's good news and bad news; if we lose, it's good news and bad news. The job of council, manager or attorney must be something like Dylan's song: "trying to fly like an eagle, while being chained to the floor." That applies also to the citizens when they assert their needs, and run into the legal morass designed to protect special interests. A frontal attack on the system produces more clever protections. At this point in my evolution, I think I must keep walking and talking, even if only by myself and to myself. As I deal with my fears, perhaps the system can relax some of its fear. I fear I've gone on too long, and may be misusing this forum; but then you are free to tell me so. Time to lay my body down, and let my soul soar to dreamland.
Comment #6 Posted by: Dennis Leary | October 6, 2006 10:04 PM
i'm not sure i'm comfortable with $10M riding on the social construct of an apology. apologies are tricky little things, and presume one party to be "right", the other "wrong", and for the "wrong" one to be convinced of their "wrongness" and feel so badly about it that they judge themselves so and offer their submission to the "right" one.
see? tricky.
i suspect that there's something of more substance behind it, not in a subversive way...perhaps in an unconscious or disconnected way. i submit that perhaps Dennis is needing to be understood and to be respected, and to be treated fairly. very understandable. but i'm not sure an apology meets those needs. were those MY needs, i think it would be more powerful for me if i could get the City Council (or certain individuals) to express and display an understanding of me and to respect my legitimacy. that could certainly be done in a public way without being "apologetic".
i already hear your voices in my head saying "we're so outraged that we have to play hardball" and "nobody operates that way...if we dont stand up for ourselves in anger, they'll never take us seriously" and "the system is fueled by money...that's the only language it understands" and "i deserve..."
watch out for that last one. tricky.
at any rate, the statements above were given to you by the machine. they self perpetuate the very system we're dissatisfied with, in my opinion. want a different outcome? try something DIFFERENT.
(yes GW, i'm talking to you too)
Comment #7 Posted by: evan | October 6, 2006 11:35 PM
Okay, so it comes down to $10M or an apology. What exactly do you need an apology for? And you're proposing to sue the city (defendant) yet list them along with yourself as plaintiff?
Comment #8 Posted by: Lisa Snider | October 7, 2006 02:23 PM
Thanks, evan and Lisa, for your responses. You are two important leaders in Ojai, and it's my priviege to follow you. My comments will play off yours, and are intended to serve the interests of truth, which in turn, I believe, serves Ojai.
The root meaning of apology is logos, which means word, order, information, explanation and meaning itself. One development of that root meaning is a defense of one's position. For example, John Henry Newman wrote his APOLOGIA FOR VITA SUA to explain his decision to leave the Anglican church for the Roman Catholic church. A more modern development of the word is evan's associations with right and wrong, feeling badly, judging oneself, being tricky, and offering submission to the "right" one [A fair description of the state of things today]. This third meaning has nothing necessarily to do with the first two meanings. My own use of the word, apology, refers to the first two meanings. I therefore apologize if I have miscommunicated my meaning.
I apologize as an information correcting and public communication tool. I do so without guilt, feeling badly, attempting to be right or wrong, or to submit to anyone. It is simply information, given in good faith to clarify my positional meaning.
Lisa considers that the subject comes down to $10M or an apology. To me, that's an oversimplification, but let it stand for discussion. On the one hand, there is the money and on the other a request for information, discussion, clarification and meaning. Can you really put a price on the latter, but if you could, it would exceed $10M. I assume that we can distinguish emotion from reason, and agree to focus on the latter. An apology can take the form of "Let's clarify this information and reach an agreement," which has nothing to do with feeling badly, or submitting to someone who is right.
Lisa asks what I need an apology for. Making proper distinctions allows for a reasonable answer. I do not need to be right, nor make another wrong. I am simply asking for an exchange based on truth. In that sense, I need an apology (in the original meaning). For example, I will start the movement towards mutual understanding by apologizing for the use of my metaphor of the "murder" of Frostie, through the inaction of the council. I will clarify the information by withdrawing the term "murder" and substituting the terms "going out of business." If someone is in good faith, they will continue the discussion, clarifying terms, offering solutions, and negotiating compromises. If they are fixated at some emotional point, they will use defense mechanisms, to defend their emotional version of truth. If you wish, you can say that of me in this discussion, but at least a discussion is going on, unless one party ends it. What do you think the council will do? Are they interested in free speech? Will the members of the council engage in a free discussion here on this blog, or anywhere? Will they exercise their first amendment rights? Will they speak as adults, or follow orders like children?
Here's another example of where I can apologize with no bad feelings. Lisa says that I name the city as a co-plaintiff ("And you're proposing to sue the city (defendant) yet list them along with yourself as plaintiff?" I am not aware that I ever said the city was a plaintiff with me, but if I did, and am shown where, I will apologize, and set the record straight as to its truthfulness. Apology is a useful tool in communication, when separated from its emotional baggage. That is not to say that emotions such as anger are not appropriate in certain situations, for example, when truth or justice is being violated.
Which brings me to the deeper spiritual, philosophical, psychological, and policy questions alluded to by evan.
Spiritually, there is a war going on among the gods. One god favors the doctrine of oneness, and the other defends the position of twoness. In our post-modern and post-post-modern age, the camp of oneness attacks hierarchy and distinction such as between "right" and "wrong," in favor of non-hierarchical communion and good feelings for all; while the camp of twoness defends hierarchy and distinctions, with all its good and bad feelings. The relgious myths take their positions on the side of the one god, or the two gods. To avoid being caught on either one of the horns of this dilemna-bull in a china shop, I say both sides have a point.
Philosophically, which means the love of wisdom, who is ordinarly portrayed as a woman (Sophia), I favor a woman's polyphasic ability to embrace the ALL of oneness, and the ALL of multiplicity. This is beyond the brainpower of most conditioned men (and man conditioned women) in our society who lead by power, not by wisdom. Fortunately, I can align myself with women and children who are not brainwashed, and can think with their hearts. ("As a woman thinketh, in her heart, so she becomes." [Jesus, according to his wife, Mary Magdalene]) Philosophically, I can embrace distinctions, and dissolve them by falling into unconditioned, distinctionless love.
Psychologically, (from "soul'), confusion (from "fuse together,") reigns when distinctions are not maintained, and the soul is lost in the real world of twoness. The soul longs for the womb of oneness, and distrusts the world of duality. It cannot be set free by truth ("The Truth will set you free") because it has given up twoness on which truth is founded. It is "not sure," and "uncomfortable" with money (especially $10M), apologies (because it cannot distinguish well, ("bene distinguere, bene discere," to distinguish well is to learn well), right/wrongs, and judgements. It is "lost" and "fallen" in the created world of dualism, either because in the pre-modern world, dualism was taken too far, or in the post-modern world, not far enough. Good psychology is a matter of balance, and the post-modern world is out of balance, with too much phallus and not enough wombness, and thus produces longing for its opposite. The soul is here precisely to deal with this world, not pine away for a lost world.
Before proceeding to policy, let me "apologize" for being a smart ass. I apologize to all those offended by me or my language. By apologize, I mean: share information about myself and my views. I have degrees in theology, philosophy and psychology, which correlate to the above three sections. I have average intelligence. My IQ in high school was 112 and 116, and I graduated in the middle of my high school and college peers. My emotional IQ is probably less than that. I am a smart ass but not a horse's ass (see, I can make distinctions).
Now for policy, which corresponds to my fourth degree, nursing. One of my basic personal policy decisions is to speak truth to power. (And here I run up against my biggest enemy/friend, my old man, FEAR, False Expectations Appearing Real.) Evan's point about language is a good one, which I am in the process of pondering and beginning to practice. I think I have the language of "againstness" down fairly well. I'm a novice in the forest of "forness." I apologize for that, and will try to correct my deficiencies. I think I've been wrong to assume that the council, for example, doen't understand "soft" language. I personally did not use the words "hardball," "outrage," or "stand up for ourselves in anger." That might be emotional truth, but I'm more interested in truth itself, which is more intellectual and spiritual. Pilate asked Jesus: "What is truth?" Jesus declined to give an answer because Pilate as representative of the materialist Romans was not in a position to receive it. We are. Ojai is. The truth will out, and it is now coming out in Ojai. My policy is to speak truth to power. I need to call frauds on their lack of truth, in languages they understand, which I will now try to learn myself, especially the language which corresponds to my fourth degree, that of nursing, a knowledge base that women and the earth naturally possess. I'm in a male body, but have a woman's heart, as I believe we all do.
My fifth degree will be in language, the language of politics. At present, I know next to nothing about it, but then I don't have to. Politics is about the people being true to themselves as sovereigns, and they are the ones who ultimately have the wisdom, and can choose to speak up or remain silent. It's not going to be easy, but it's starting right here in Ojai. A woman started this political yarn on Sept. 26, less than two weeks ago, which allows me to say "I didn't start it." The truth is: there is a woman behind everything.
My policy is to go for truth. I apologize to myself, and you, for all my failures, not with shame, guilt, bad feelings and blame, but as a point of information, which includes working through those feelings. I'm either going to go for truth, or I'm not. I am a Sagittarius, which for me is a truth sign. There is no middle ground, when it comes to absolute Truth, but there is with relative truth. These are the two-in-one Truth(s), which the mind cannot, and never will reconcile. If Pilate had done his homework, or listened to his intelligence service, he would have realized that Jesus said earlier, "I am the Truth." Absolute Truth is personal; relative truth is political, an hierarchical arrangement of power with Love at the top. I apologize for preaching, but it is in my blood. I apologize for military language but it's in my genes. As Dylan sings: "...tough sons of bitches; I'm recruting my army from the old religious." My policy is to learn the new language, without foregoing the old. If we're ever to restore peace and balance to this world, we have to get down in the mud and blood with the reds, while keeping one eye on the blues above, knowing that red and blue on the inside make browns of us all on the outside.
Playing off Evan's reference to "the social construct of an apology," and turning it a bit, I think apology as a social construct could serve the cause of peace and justice well, by speaking truth. Apologies are "tricky little things," all right, but "there's something of more substance behind it,"..."needing to be understood and to be respected, and to be treated fairly..." that "want(s)a different outcome"...to..."try something DIFFERENT." I will. I will. Here's something different: the refusal to apologize is the end of wisdom. Humility used to be considered a virtue (read: power) before it went out of fashion in the modern world.
I "apologize" for going on so long. It was meant in good faith, to get at the truth of things.
Comment #9 Posted by: Dennis Leary | October 9, 2006 01:51 PM
Dennis, I doubt you have answered the questions. This feels like a fillibuster. But hey good luck to you when you face the voters next month!
Comment #10 Posted by: Lisa Snider | October 9, 2006 02:47 PM
Dennis,
(i address you by name, although i want to be clear that i always post here with the awareness that i'm writing into the void, to everyone or no-one)
i usually skip the longer posts - which is about me and my attention span and available time, not about the content - but i thank you for this last one. i'm understanding much better what you mean when the word "apology" and all its forms come from you. i'm still concerned that many will read it in the modern, traditional way as i did, but i'm comfortable saying that because you have made it clear to me that you're open to precisely this kind of dialogue.
frankly, you lose me a bit when you delve into philosophy and psychology at your level...that's because they're your degrees and not mine. i dont want you to "dumb it down" for me...i'm simply sharing that there are parts of you that i cannot grasp yet.
lastly, i empathize with the length of your post...definitely longer than some would like, but i know what it's like to have lots of "important" things to say, to a fault.
here's to truth, brother.
Comment #11 Posted by: evan | October 10, 2006 09:28 AM
Lisa and evan,
I address you by name as recent co-responders, but am aware, too, that I am speaking into the "void," and laying down a public paper trail for the work ahead.
This communication is fun for me, and educational, as well as practical philosophy and politics. I apologize for its length and obscurity. I am learning as I go. I have been pondering Lisa's comments upon "filibustering" and a "non-answer." I spoke last evening at the Ojai city council meeting, on the Brown Act, and was struck immediately by the power of the "bully pulpit," of the present power structure, as they spun their version of the truth. I realized that filibustering can be a useful tool when a minority is faced with the overwhelming power of the establishment, which often includes the mainstream press, and sometimes the alternative press. The press for real truth and genuine communication requires the use of all available methods, types of filibuster being one. I just looked up the word, and it means "an irregular military adventurer." I think that description fits my tactics in an intellectual and spiritual sense. I intend to flood the power structure with my version of the truth, knowing that some of it will get through. I can already see progress in chipping away at their idea structure (philosophy). The old idea regime will crumble eventually because it is not based on sustainable truth, and a substitute has to be prepared for the vacuum that will ensue.
Lisa's other comment was that I didn't really answer her questions. True. In one philosophic sense, answers are really not the point of a question. A question is a "quest," which is ongoing, with no stopping place. It is meant to stimulate the intuitive grasp of truth, which comes from within an individual. Accepting an "answer" from an outward source may in fact subvert the questioner and quester in her truth quest. That point is the thrust of my filibuster with the present political power complex. Instead of thinking as indivduals, and engaging in meaningful communication, they accept the authority of their hired hands, Mr. Widders, their attorney, and Mr. Kersnar, their manager. They hide behind their spin on the law, which is untruthful (in the larger scheme of things). Last night, they ended up doing in their actions what they were denying with their words. I will now penetrate the breach in logic which they themselves opened up. Of course, this is beyond the interests (not the ability) of most people. Who really cares about splitting hairs or counting the number of angels on the head of a pin (other than me), when you have children to raise, money to make, and a TV program to catch?
I do appreciate your kind remarks, evan. I happen to be retired, and I don't have to work right now, so I have time. If I had to hold down a full time job, or even a half time job, I could not do this. So, theologically, all is in good order, and proceding right on schedule. I've got one eye on the goal (truth), and one eye on the ball (justice). We're going for true peace (a combination of truth and justice), and filibustering is a piece of the action. I put this information out with love to that vast void, where it returns to me as loving information, if the philosophers are right.
Here's to truth, brother; and to justice, sister. Brother Truth and Sister Justice, corny but true, sort of like Brother Sun and Sister Moon, although I prefer the politically incorrect, Sister Sun and Brother Moon. I could spin words forever, but I better curb my addiction, and attend to practical matters.
Comment #12 Posted by: Dennis Leary | October 11, 2006 12:44 PM
Dennis,
As a citizen of Ojai and a property owner in Ojai for more then 10 years... I have to say, don't delude yourself that your values and perspectives represent the majority of the citizens of Ojai. You may be philosophically aligned with a vocal minority. Your perspectives on the (lack of) property owners right to chose how to use or develop their lawfully acquired property (Frostie, Mallory Way) is contrary to what I perceive is a movement (post Kelo) across the country towards codifying in law more protection for property owners. There are some places that are at least considering that property owners could sue if government changes zoning laws which result in the economic value of their property being diminished.
I will not be voting for you in the election.
Comment #13 Posted by: Peter Heald | October 18, 2006 02:09 PM
Peter - your reference to Kelo is interesting. It is true that "post-Kelo", some on the fringe right wing have been pushing for measures that create a windfall for developers and speculators who bought, for example, zoned agricultural land for cheap and who now want to disavow that zoning and build whatever they want (even better for them, their actual proposals are to create a right to sue the state for some hypothetical value that they could have achieved if there had been no zoning, jumping straight to the profits without the pesky need to actually finance and build anything). That is a far cry from the Kelo problem. In Kelo, a city redevelopment agency used eminent domain to force local residents from their homes, in order to turn the property over to a private developer.
If you are worried about the Kelo situation, you should re-evaluate Dennis. I think you will find he is your candidate. He is about preservation. He would never turn a local homeowner out on the street so he could turn their property over to a developer.
Can you say that about the current councilmembers? True, by their actions it is pretty clear they would not consider using their powers to block a developer in any way. But by the same measure, you are being naive if you think that means that if your home was in a developer's way, this city council would not consider using its powers to boot you out and turn your property over to the developer. Jere Kersnar has an "unfinished quilt" he is trying to "finish". Woe to you if your property is in the way.
So, I read you to be saying that you, as a property owner, will not be voting for Dennis. But really, I would ask you to qualify that further. Are you the kind of "property owner" who is also a developer? If so, you should say, as a developer, you will not be voting for Dennis. I agree, I don't think he is a developer's candidate.
On the other hand, if you are the kind of "property owner" who is not a developer, and who likes Ojai and your property more or less how it is, you ought to be proclaiming from the rooftops why it is that you will be voting for Dennis, because love him or hate him, he is your candidate.
Comment #14 Posted by: anonymous | October 21, 2006 12:44 AM
Interesting, I must have done a very poor job in my previous post articulating my perspective. I was trying to avoid any broad categorizations like (quoting previous anonymous poster) "fringe right wing" or labeling a candidate as fringe left wing...
My point about the Kelo decision was that government (through eminent domain) was used to coerce an outcome different then the wishes of the individual property owners (to keep their houses when developers wanted to acquire property for development). I am not a developer or pro-development or pro-conservation. I believe that if property is owned (whether by an individual who simply wants to retain their home of 40 years, or a developer who is acquiring property for development) the owner should be able to do with it what they want. If people want to conserve properties they should raise the money and buy them on the market, rather then attempt to use government to coerce a private property owner to acquiesce to the conservationists desires (example: Frostie or Mallory Way). Another quote from previous anonymous poster: "He would never turn a local homeowner out on the street so he could turn their property over to a developer."My response: Dennis would clearly deny a legal and lawful property owner the right to profit from his ownership of an underutilized commercial parcel in the downtown core (see Frostie).
Final quote from previous anonymous poster: "On the other hand, if you are the kind of "property owner" who is not a developer, and who likes Ojai and your property more or less how it is, you ought to be proclaiming from the rooftops why it is that you will be voting for Dennis, because love him or hate him, he is your candidate." As I have said, I am not a developer. I do like Ojai, that's why I bought here 11 years ago. I like my property as it is. I do not, however, presume to believe that I have any more right to tell others what to do with their property then they should have the right to tell me what to do with mine.
It is the use of the power of government to coerce an outcome that is wrong, not the home owner who wants to stay in their home, or the developer who wants to make a profit.
I reiterate, I will not be voting for Dennis.
Comment #15 Posted by: Peter Heald | October 21, 2006 10:34 AM
Interesting point Peter. Your take on Kelo is, I think, not the take that has so sparked outrage across the land. The problem is not that government somehow forced an outcome that the individual property owner did not want. That is the function of government. Perhaps you don't want government at all, I don't know. But if we have government, it has to be at its most basic level because as a society, we want to impose some basic rules and restraints on behavior. You might want to murder and torture people on your private property; you might believe that the problem with Kelo is that at some level, it involves the government stepping in to prevent you from murdering and torturing people on your property; but the bottom line is, as a society, we don't want you murdering and torturing people on your private property, and nothing on your grant deed gives you the right to do so.
It sounds really like what you want is to have your cake and eat it too. You want a government there to enforce on the public dime YOUR individual "right" to do whatever YOU want on your private property; you just don't think the government, society, your neighbors, your fellow citizens, whatever, should have any say in deciding what limits there should or should not be in the use of their government and tax dollars to enforce whatever YOU want to do on "your" property. The problem with that is of course that it doesn't work; when what you want conflicts with what your neighbors want, there have to be some rules in place so that some appropriate resolution can be had. To bring this back to the point of this exchange, Dennis is for setting those rules in favor of preservation of the existing attributes of our town. The current council, by its actions, is for setting those rules in favor of new development that will fundamentally alter the key attributes of our town. You are not being offered a choice in this election between some pure view of expansive property rights vs. diminished property rights. You are being offered a choice between expanded development on a larger scale than this town has seen before, and preservation.
Sorry for posting anonymously. Given that lawsuits seem to be filed in this town willy nilly when people put forward ideas, I am choosing caution over valor (at least as to this exchange).
Comment #16 Posted by: anonymous | October 21, 2006 12:06 PM
Quote from anonymous poster : "You might want to murder and torture people on your private property" ... where did THIS come from? I said NOTHING of the sort. I was talking about controlling the ownership of property and the ability to decide what to do with privately owned property... develop it, sell it, keep it or whatever and I don't think Dennis represents the perspective on this issue I want in government.
This is a bizarre twist and I'm going to cease this discussion since you have taken it down a path I find rather disturbing ("murder and torture"). You vote the way you want to and I'll vote the way I want to.
Over and out.
Comment #17 Posted by: Anonymous | October 21, 2006 02:39 PM
Take it as you will. I agree it is bizarre and twisted. But it's your argument.
In 1960, a fellow named Ronald Coase, known as the father of the field of "law and economics" and a Nobel prizewinner, wrote a groundbreaking article called "The Problem of Social Cost." In that article, he suggested that property rights could solve the problem of "externalities.' This article is credited with giving rise to bidding for spectrum licenses, pollution credits and the like. You might want to check him out, and follow some of the vast academic literature that has come out of his ideas. It includes this "post-Kelo" movement on the far right fringe to require the taxpayer to pay for the highest possible economic value that might theoretically be realized from a piece of property in order to impose any limitations at all on use of property. It also includes the example I raised, not proposed absurdly but seriously - that if we want to regulate murder and torture, we would be better off as a society if we paid the killer enough cash so that he'd rather take the money than kill again. I walked out of a class in college taught by an eminent economics professor who spent a lecture seriously making that argument.
Anyway, I agree, we've gone as far as we will get. My only real point has been that if you like Ojai as it is, Dennis is a strong preservation candidate, especially as compared to the incumbents. You can dress the election up as some kind of property rights issue, but that's not really what it is.
Comment #18 Posted by: anonymous | October 21, 2006 04:44 PM
Two comments:
1. I have been following the discussion on property rights, and am happy that it has been introduced, since it is a critcal issue of great importance. I will give my views on the subject, soon, perhaps tomorrow.
2. Tyler, there is a critical error in the text of my opening comment, paragraph 13, line 7. It should read "disfavored," not "favored."
Comment #19 Posted by: Dennis Leary | October 22, 2006 07:17 PM
I am for private property rights within the context of public good rights. I would never vote to remove anyone from their home, except under extreme circumstances that involve the public good, and then only after justly compensating those affected. Even staunch conservatives would favor eminent domain for roads urgently needed by the public, and for using private factories in war time. The present reaction is to abuses of eminent domain.
It is a myth that a property owner can do whatever he wants with his property. Because I own my car, doesn't mean I can drive through red lights. Balance between public good and private good must prevail, with common sense.
There is always a tension between the individual and the group. The individual cannot be allowed by the group to grow so powerful that he destroys the group. The group should not be so powerful that it harms individuals. There's a delicate balance that must be maintained.
In the case of Mallory Way and Frostie, the balance is tipped too far in favor of private ownership, and needs to be balanced with a strong civic government that protects both interests, in my opinion. It is in the interest of the public good of Ojai to retain Mallory as an economic, and historic resource. The ordinances allow this, contrary to interpretation of the present leadership. Mallory has 25 low cost units. If it is converted to condos, the balance is upset, and injustice is done to people, who may have to leave Ojai.
Property rights are one set among many. The right of people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is our law. We the People rights come first, according the constitution. The People, and that means each individual person, come first according to most relgions, often expressed in terms of love for all, especially the needy.
In the case of Frostie, that was a small business that supported about seven families. It also had historic and economic benefits to the city. Preserving history makes money for cities, which is why preservation of historic resources is encoded in law. It has other values, like aesthetics.
I could go on with an attempt at rational analysis, but no one is ever convinced against their will. I have my feelings about the people of Mallory Way and Frostie. Other people feel differently. As a candidate, I present my views, to balance what I feel is the out of balance situation. I believe it is lawful and in the interest of Ojai to preserve Mallory Way and O-Hi Frostie. A larger aspect of this issue is the preservation of Ojai itself, and even larger is the preservation of our planet.
If individual property rights are not kept in check, through a system of checks and balances, they act as an out of control cancer, which will eventually kill the larger body. In Ojai, the destruction of Mallory and Frostie is microincident of what is happening in the world.
Others appear to want a world where money and property is king. I don't. I believe the law of God, and most modern constitutions enshrine the people as sovereigns. I have a feeling for the truth of that. Thanks be to God and our constitution, that we can vote. We have come through some dark ages where most people were slaves. It's a long, hard road to freedom. When I die, I believe that I will be freer from attachment to property. But that's my belief. I respect those who stand up for their beliefs about the sacredness of property. The key is freedom of speech about it so we can better appreciate the role of property rights in the greater scheme of things. It's a difficult, complex subject, which I will come back to again. Thank you for bringing it up.
Comment #20 Posted by: Dennis Leary | October 23, 2006 01:15 PM
More or less not much exciting happening today. I just don't have anything to say. More or less nothing seems worth bothering with.
;)
Comment #21 Posted by: Cyryl | June 27, 2007 04:00 PM
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
Comment #22 Posted by: Izydor | August 18, 2007 10:45 AM