Dog Park II: looks like only Kris Wang respects...
This past month, we witnessed courageous support and commendable collaboration from increasingly more Cupertino citizens to voice concerns, protest and even file a petition to get Cupertino City Council to officially reconsider their amazingly democracy-sabotaging practice on July 21 to approve the survey-and-trial for establishing unleashed dog parks.
The reason that I didn't update the blog timely is that: after witnessing what happened in the Toll-Brother case in 2006, unless we as citizens get the Council to amend its rules/practices/laws, I no longer trust that Council would respect citizens' protest and reconsider or repent their decision. This was again evident in the Council's decision to regrettably turn down citizen's petition to reconsider on Sept 1st. It was heart-wrenching to see how much time and efforts, hence taxpayer money, this Council has cost so many Cuperitno citizens.
All through this month and two meetings, we saw that only Vice Mayor Kris Wang tried to amend and change officially her vote on July 21 on record. She was also the only one that fought to get the July-21 haste decision reconsidered, citing many excellent facts and reasons: for example, lack of information on impact on other existing uses in the four parks, lack of study on the correctness and saneness of the survey and trials (Are the proposed trial times even sensible? Are the survey scope even democratic and reasonable? What prevents dog-owners to gang up and go to each surveyed park to innudate votes by pretending to be that park's regular users?). Despite her citing many such excellent and logical reasons, all the other four council members rejected citizens' petition, saying, paraphrasing Gilbert Wong: "We take reconsideration very seriously. In the history of Cupertino City Concil, there had only been two times that a reconsideration happened." Orrin Mahoney said, paraphrasing: "We had spent so much time on this issue since last year; instead of just gathering more information, let's just do it and see!"
Gilbert, if history can be the reason for today's action, why do we need you? We can just base every decision on history. Orrin, do you even know the trap of "sunk cost"? If not, look it up: trying to escape out of a due process only because you had put much time into it before now is illogical and simply irresponsible, given that you are supposed to serve all citizens of this city. I really doubt more and more where you went to school: as you like to offer disguising yet illogical statements and make decisions based on them. Either you are now adapt at being a politician or you are trying to deliberately trick more and more voters.
Kris was the only one on record that decided to do what makes sense after hearing community feedback, the only one that knows that just because reconsideration rules are written as such, rules are just words that set the "lowest" standard, just as the law does. When a rule or law doesn't apply in a situation, it is a councilperson or judge's decision to act above and beyond to protect the intention of the rule/law — protecting people and democracy utmost. For otherwise, why do we need judges and any judiciary system at all? However, to all the other four councilpeople, it looks like hiding behind written, basic rules is the best disguise and excuse to avoid respecting their citizens and doing the right thing, as they argued that lack of information doesn't mean violating their haste motion and undemocratic practice on July 21st. (You now see why arguing with the Council on their own rules is of no use — they are the ones interpreting themselves!)
For the record: Gilbert Wong has been known to say things that we sane citizens love to hear, but he hasn't consistently acted according to his words (see the previous article about the 2006-condo-building fiasco he was part of in City of Cupertino on Planning for Measurex Zone). For this matter, to this blog, he is still considered a dangerous councilman to root for because he does not always preach what he says. To all sane citizens, words don't matter. So let's continue to monitor Gilbert on his track record to see whether he is interest-group-tending as well. His action on this matter proves to be increasingly disappointing, raising suspicion that he may be ganging up with Mark on this issue as well.
As for Dolly Sandoval, she is stepping down this year after November election. So this blog won't waste more time on her. She, did, however, do something a bit more reasonable this time: she tried to sweeten her image by motioning to bring the survey results back and discuss together with the community first before proceeding. The candidate she is supporting, for example, Marty Miller, who is running in November, though, may be dangerous as well: unless Marty voices his stand otherwise, given that he is backed by Dolly and Mark, and with Dolly and Mark also for unleash dog parks, I doubt that Marty is a good candidate to vote for as he may be also one of the gang with Mark, Gilbert and Orrin.
As for Mark Santoro and Orrin Mahoney: The best solution is to not vote for them in their re-election bids this November. Mark and Orrin like to say that (paraphrasing): "Well, because people can choose not to come to the park during the off-leash hours, this is a good compromise." They both often cited this as their reason for going for off-leash dog parks. Honestly, any sane person can see how undemocratic and unreasonable this logic is: Let's, for argument's sake, assume that we even think that taking away public space from small neighborhood parks and wasting all taxpayer money on pets could remotely even be sane and reasonable: the proposed off-leash hours are times in the mornings and evenings when most people will be using the parks. By telling citizens that dislike the potential danger and annoyance of unleash dogs to avoid coming to the parks during the off-leash hours, Mark and Orrin are telling Cupertino citizens to not use the parks when they most need the space! Since when are public parks reserved for selected group at the expense and danger of others at the most needed times? Apparently, Mark and Orrin don't care to reason and explain to this level because, one can only gather, they care only about tending to the interest group behind this.
Furthermore, Mark Santoro, in the Sept 1st meeting, even tried to spin his rationale using a racial and minority analogy on camera (which, by the way, just showed his insensitivity) by claiming that "dog-owners" like him are "minority" just like racial minority that should enjoy equal rights. Well, Mark, look up the definition of "minority" in the legal and public sense that you tried to inject in this context: "minority" refers to humans and only humans. Never humans with pets or whatever non-human animals/objects they possess. These are called "special interest" groups. If everyone can go by your twisted logic, then everyone with pets can all claim as "minority" and ask for off-leashed hours and space paid by all citizens. Say, if I have non-poisonous snakes as pets and I love them so much that they are like humans to me, too - hey, they aren't dangerous and don't bite; they wag their tails and look so cute to me; they are the non-poisonous kind and their mouths are even so much smaller than dogs' -, by your twisted logic, others and I with snakes are also minority. Shouldn't others and I with snakes be allowed to walk and run our snakes in our small public parks off-leashed in certain hours and ask others that are afraid to just stay home during these off-leash snakes-walking hours? Mark Santoro's twisted logic is so obviously wrong, yet borrowing racial analogy is such a convenient trick and slogan that could sound so deceivingly grandiose on the first beat. Now you can see further why Mark, Orrin, Dolly and Gilbert are ganging up for "special-interest" groups, not "minority" rights in the legal and public sense.
Citizens of Cupertino: While this blog never likes to side with anyone in an election and prefers to let the voters see each candidate's track-record (actions, not words) and decide for themselves, because of this amazingly interest-group-tending practice of the Council, there is now a very solid, simple and effective solution: DO NOT VOTE for Mark Santoro, Orrin Mahoney, or any candidate that Mark, Orrin or Dolly supports (e.g. Marty Miller unless he comes forward to voice his opinion otherwise) in this coming November city coucil election!
The reason that I didn't update the blog timely is that: after witnessing what happened in the Toll-Brother case in 2006, unless we as citizens get the Council to amend its rules/practices/laws, I no longer trust that Council would respect citizens' protest and reconsider or repent their decision. This was again evident in the Council's decision to regrettably turn down citizen's petition to reconsider on Sept 1st. It was heart-wrenching to see how much time and efforts, hence taxpayer money, this Council has cost so many Cuperitno citizens.
All through this month and two meetings, we saw that only Vice Mayor Kris Wang tried to amend and change officially her vote on July 21 on record. She was also the only one that fought to get the July-21 haste decision reconsidered, citing many excellent facts and reasons: for example, lack of information on impact on other existing uses in the four parks, lack of study on the correctness and saneness of the survey and trials (Are the proposed trial times even sensible? Are the survey scope even democratic and reasonable? What prevents dog-owners to gang up and go to each surveyed park to innudate votes by pretending to be that park's regular users?). Despite her citing many such excellent and logical reasons, all the other four council members rejected citizens' petition, saying, paraphrasing Gilbert Wong: "We take reconsideration very seriously. In the history of Cupertino City Concil, there had only been two times that a reconsideration happened." Orrin Mahoney said, paraphrasing: "We had spent so much time on this issue since last year; instead of just gathering more information, let's just do it and see!"
Gilbert, if history can be the reason for today's action, why do we need you? We can just base every decision on history. Orrin, do you even know the trap of "sunk cost"? If not, look it up: trying to escape out of a due process only because you had put much time into it before now is illogical and simply irresponsible, given that you are supposed to serve all citizens of this city. I really doubt more and more where you went to school: as you like to offer disguising yet illogical statements and make decisions based on them. Either you are now adapt at being a politician or you are trying to deliberately trick more and more voters.
Kris was the only one on record that decided to do what makes sense after hearing community feedback, the only one that knows that just because reconsideration rules are written as such, rules are just words that set the "lowest" standard, just as the law does. When a rule or law doesn't apply in a situation, it is a councilperson or judge's decision to act above and beyond to protect the intention of the rule/law — protecting people and democracy utmost. For otherwise, why do we need judges and any judiciary system at all? However, to all the other four councilpeople, it looks like hiding behind written, basic rules is the best disguise and excuse to avoid respecting their citizens and doing the right thing, as they argued that lack of information doesn't mean violating their haste motion and undemocratic practice on July 21st. (You now see why arguing with the Council on their own rules is of no use — they are the ones interpreting themselves!)
For the record: Gilbert Wong has been known to say things that we sane citizens love to hear, but he hasn't consistently acted according to his words (see the previous article about the 2006-condo-building fiasco he was part of in City of Cupertino on Planning for Measurex Zone). For this matter, to this blog, he is still considered a dangerous councilman to root for because he does not always preach what he says. To all sane citizens, words don't matter. So let's continue to monitor Gilbert on his track record to see whether he is interest-group-tending as well. His action on this matter proves to be increasingly disappointing, raising suspicion that he may be ganging up with Mark on this issue as well.
As for Dolly Sandoval, she is stepping down this year after November election. So this blog won't waste more time on her. She, did, however, do something a bit more reasonable this time: she tried to sweeten her image by motioning to bring the survey results back and discuss together with the community first before proceeding. The candidate she is supporting, for example, Marty Miller, who is running in November, though, may be dangerous as well: unless Marty voices his stand otherwise, given that he is backed by Dolly and Mark, and with Dolly and Mark also for unleash dog parks, I doubt that Marty is a good candidate to vote for as he may be also one of the gang with Mark, Gilbert and Orrin.
As for Mark Santoro and Orrin Mahoney: The best solution is to not vote for them in their re-election bids this November. Mark and Orrin like to say that (paraphrasing): "Well, because people can choose not to come to the park during the off-leash hours, this is a good compromise." They both often cited this as their reason for going for off-leash dog parks. Honestly, any sane person can see how undemocratic and unreasonable this logic is: Let's, for argument's sake, assume that we even think that taking away public space from small neighborhood parks and wasting all taxpayer money on pets could remotely even be sane and reasonable: the proposed off-leash hours are times in the mornings and evenings when most people will be using the parks. By telling citizens that dislike the potential danger and annoyance of unleash dogs to avoid coming to the parks during the off-leash hours, Mark and Orrin are telling Cupertino citizens to not use the parks when they most need the space! Since when are public parks reserved for selected group at the expense and danger of others at the most needed times? Apparently, Mark and Orrin don't care to reason and explain to this level because, one can only gather, they care only about tending to the interest group behind this.
Furthermore, Mark Santoro, in the Sept 1st meeting, even tried to spin his rationale using a racial and minority analogy on camera (which, by the way, just showed his insensitivity) by claiming that "dog-owners" like him are "minority" just like racial minority that should enjoy equal rights. Well, Mark, look up the definition of "minority" in the legal and public sense that you tried to inject in this context: "minority" refers to humans and only humans. Never humans with pets or whatever non-human animals/objects they possess. These are called "special interest" groups. If everyone can go by your twisted logic, then everyone with pets can all claim as "minority" and ask for off-leashed hours and space paid by all citizens. Say, if I have non-poisonous snakes as pets and I love them so much that they are like humans to me, too - hey, they aren't dangerous and don't bite; they wag their tails and look so cute to me; they are the non-poisonous kind and their mouths are even so much smaller than dogs' -, by your twisted logic, others and I with snakes are also minority. Shouldn't others and I with snakes be allowed to walk and run our snakes in our small public parks off-leashed in certain hours and ask others that are afraid to just stay home during these off-leash snakes-walking hours? Mark Santoro's twisted logic is so obviously wrong, yet borrowing racial analogy is such a convenient trick and slogan that could sound so deceivingly grandiose on the first beat. Now you can see further why Mark, Orrin, Dolly and Gilbert are ganging up for "special-interest" groups, not "minority" rights in the legal and public sense.
Citizens of Cupertino: While this blog never likes to side with anyone in an election and prefers to let the voters see each candidate's track-record (actions, not words) and decide for themselves, because of this amazingly interest-group-tending practice of the Council, there is now a very solid, simple and effective solution: DO NOT VOTE for Mark Santoro, Orrin Mahoney, or any candidate that Mark, Orrin or Dolly supports (e.g. Marty Miller unless he comes forward to voice his opinion otherwise) in this coming November city coucil election!
posted by Concerned Resident at 5:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home