Jonathan vs. Patrick

I fully support re-electing Sarah Glade Gurney and Una Glass to the Sebastopol City Council. However, at the moment, I am rather torn between supporting Jonathan Greenberg or Patrick Slayter for the remaining seat.

One on hand, I think Jonathan's heart is in the right place but he in an unproven leader in Sebastopol and I think he has been slow to shift his thinking and presentation from activist to leader. On the other hand, while Patrick has been a steadfast and even tempered leader and has garnered the support of his fellow council members, I'm still not sure if I trust him to preserve and enhance what's best for Sebastopol after his vote that enabled CVS to move downtown. I have heard a rumor that he has reconsidered that vote and I have asked him to write about that, but so far I haven't seen anything. According to Patrick the city attorney is reviewing his comments. If he has indeed reconsidered that vote and now sees it differently, and publishes that, I would support him.

While Jonathan has been a passionate and effective activist, whose efforts significantly changed the support of the library ballot measure, the Open Our Hospital Campaign (through his excellent investigative articles on WaccoBB and other outreach), and galvanising the community to withstand CVS's incursion into our downtown along with a good critique of the flawed CVS traffic report, my sense is that he is not ready to transition from activist to governing at the city council level which calls for a different set of skills, beyond beyond staking out positions (that I generally support) on hot button issues.

I think the unusual spectacle of large parts of the progressive community backing Patrick, who is arguably more conservative, rather than Jonathan speaks to this.

To be fair ,Jonathan was put in a difficult position. To run against an incumbent he needed to say why he was a better choice and demonstrate that he has the experience for the job. I believe this led him to lean on some small issues too heavily, such as the small steps that the council could make support to re-opening the hospital, criticizing fellow council members, and boast about his achievements to date.

Jonathan might be just as effective creating change in the public interest by continuing to work as an activist and investigative reporter on hot issues, without having to deal the tedium of much of the council's work, or having to balance the divergent views within our community and build consensus.

If he wants to enter city government, I'd like to see him appointed to the planning commission when seats become available in December, before moving on to the council.

If Patrick fails to recant his CVS vote, the I would no choice but to support Jonathan. I can not countenance that disastrous call and I would trust Jonathan more to protect and enhance our fair town and I would hope he would grow into the role.

Please don't reply with comments you have already posted elsewhere. In particular, if you chime in of support of Patrick (ie against Jonathan), please address the CVS issue.

I'd especially like to hear from people who haven't weighed in yet.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

...I have heard a rumor that he has reconsidered [his CVS] vote and I have asked him to write about that, but so far I haven't seen anything. According to Patrick the city attorney is reviewing his comments. If he has indeed reconsidered that vote and now sees it differently, and publishes that, I would support him.
...

---

Patrick's comments floated in soon after I wrote this. Here they are:

---

From Patrick Slayter:

CVS. Those three letters can illicit more emotion, disdain and intrigue than almost any others in Sebastopol’s history. I have recently been asked about the history of the project by newcomers and find it almost impossible to accurately explain the twists, the legal actions, and all the individuals who make up the tapestry of the tale.

During the final hearing on October 9, 2014, when the Council approved the settlement of two lawsuits, my statements were brief; I found the actions of the project developers to be deceptive and purposefully deceitful, actions included: withholding information either completely or waiting until within the hour of a scheduled Council meeting to deliver; specific drawings were repeatedly requested to inform the Council of design aspects, yet were never received; the Council’s sincere desire for a two story building was somehow incomprehensively interpreted as a request for a tall one story structure; eliminating any possibility of contact (to include any last-minute questions about the design) leading up to signing the agreement, leaving the City in a take-it-or-leave-it situation; and, acting like a bully, using their significant financial resources to wear Sebastopol down and force a settlement.

The problem with hindsight is that it’s easy to assume it would be easy to revisit a decision and come to a different conclusion. However, using the power of hindsight, I should have joined Sarah Gurney in voting “no”, to not approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which would have produced a 3-2 vote instead of a 4-1 vote (still not a majority). If three council members had voted “no” the project could have appropriately been returned to the Planning Commission in order to complete their work and produce a list of findings about the merits, and demerits, of the project.

After all the public hearings, the seemingly endless hours of meetings, the community divisions and the expenditure of funds on legal fees defending ourselves from an unwarranted and groundless lawsuit (CVS sued the City on the grounds that its corporation has civil rights and that somehow Sebastopol infringed upon them), the settlement has produced a better project. Among the provisions: there are no left turns allowed into or out of the site; the property will be subdivided into five legal parcels, allowing for future appropriate infill development; the landscaping design is improved; the city gains five electric vehicle charging stations, one on the project site and four will be installed at the developer’s expense at locations specified by the city; all project buildings will have photovoltaic systems installed which comply with our photovoltaic ordinance; and, there will be no drive throughs, allowing for an appropriate and environmentally-sensitive downtown urban form.

This project has also allowed the City Council, City staff and residents to understand the deficiencies in our codes, ordinances and standards. Sebastopol’s General Plan Update is currently underway and the lessons learned during the CVS project process will be implemented appropriately. Our Design Review Guidelines for downtown development were not up to the task of providing clear instruction to the developers as well as to the Design Review Board. A Council subcommittee has completely revised the Guidelines, renaming them the Downtown Design Standards with specific, quantitative standards which must be met, but still allow for architectural diversity and clever design.

I am glad this chapter is in our rear view mirrors and that we can move forward, united, towards the ultimate goal of the physical and social community we desire.

---

Well Patrick said the magic words:

"However, using the power of hindsight, I should have joined Sarah Gurney in voting “no”, to not approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which would have produced a 3-2 vote instead of a 4-1 vote (still not a majority)."

but he doesn't really say why. Perhaps he can't, legally. To come out against such a corporate villain (with such deep pockets) on a such a prominent corner of our downtown may not be advisable, let alone the horrendous traffic impact their high volume/low value business is sure to create.

So while I believe him at his word, it's less than comforting. That leaves me still on the fence...
... or rather just outside the fence, in that my house is about 100 yards outside the city limits so I can't vote for city council!

I think our city is blessed to have 4 such quality candidates, and I'm sure that whichever 3 are chosen will serve us well!

This feels like I’m looking at a “Fight Card”- like Ali vs. Frazier or some other bizarre match up. Where’s the ring?

After I agreed to run for City Council in 2012, I was advised to tell Robert Jacob (who was seen as both my opponent and ally by some) that I wasn’t “running against him.” My only honest response was that I was “running for myself” for a seat on the City Council- I was running “against” everyone else. I felt that all of the candidates should stand or fall on their own merits. Robert and I eventually cross-endorsed each other, and have become friends and colleagues, but for the majority of the campaign, we were just two candidates, knocking on doors, trying to “sell” ourselves to voters.

To say that Candidate A and B are great, but that Candidate C needs to be defeated seems odd to me. A stronger, more self-confident position, I believe, would be to say that you are the best candidate for the job- period, and this is why- judge me on my credentials and positions (and overall history, if available).

I have not discussed the prior City Council’s vote on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the CVS project with Vice Mayor Slayter. This was the move that essentially paved the way for CVS to move forward. All votes taken after that date were essentially ceremonial. I was there the night that the MND vote was taken, and I strongly believe that the Council was provided with flawed and/or biased information upon which to base their decision. Some members of the prior Council may have voted in the affirmative no matter what, but I believe that several of the prior Councilmembers felt that the MND was legal, conforming and justified, based upon the supporting information provided to them.

It is important to recognize` that four of the five Councilmembers voted to approve the MND (Councilmember Gurney voted no). As they say, “It’s a three-vote world…” on the City Council, so Vice Mayor Slayter’s vote was essentially inconsequential to the outcome- the MND would have been approved even if he had he been absent that evening. Councilmember Michael Kyes (who Mr. Greenberg has referred to as “Sebastopol’s Most Courageous Leader”) also voted “yes” that evening. Were he alive today and running for reelection, Barry, would he be required to pass your “litmus test” as well? Which of the two of them would have needed to be “eliminated”? Why not both, if your decision is merely based upon one vote, without taking the totality of a person’s record into account.

Knowing what I now know, I will say for the record that had the prior City Council not certified the MND that evening, the litigation that CVS eventually brought upon Sebastopol on Christmas Eve would very likely have only commenced earlier. Great range of options, right?

Councilmembers oftentimes have to deliberate in a complex, restrictive atmosphere. These five people are charged with receiving verbal and written input from a variety of sources- staff, consultants, project applicants, attorneys (both on your side and opposed to you), the public, your own internal sense of “doing the right thing”, etc. Did I want to settle with CVS? No. Did I want to spend another $400,000.00 or more to possibly get a questionable additional amount of concessions? Also no. You sit in a room in closed session, and are asked for a decision after all “relevant” data has been provided to you, and all of your questions have been asked. In the end, it comes down to five people, who are just like you, who attempt to make the best decision after balancing all of the known aspects. The transition from “activist” to Councilmember has provided me a perspective that only comes with the trust, faith and responsibility that has been conferred by our citizens.

If I am honest, I will say that I expected to have an icy relationship with Vice-Mayor Slayter after I was elected- like you, merely because of his vote on CVS. I thought that the new Council majority would shun him, and relegate him to the sidelines- a “seatwarmer.” As you can see, it did not turn out that way. I have been impressed by the number of times that I found myself in agreement with him- it just happened. Yes, he is not a “flaming liberal”, but he provides great balance for the rest of us when we need it. He speaks for a large segment of our citizens who don’t speak at Council meetings, post on Wacco or write letters to the Editor.

I won’t turn this into a “campaign ad” laundry list of his accomplishments since I have been on the Council, but they are numerous and impressive. I was proud to join him in stopping PG and E Smart Meter installers in less than an hour while avoiding litigation, his role in the Drivethrough Moratorium, his landmark Photovoltaic Ordinance, co-authored with former Mayor Michael Kyes, his work on revisions to our Design Review Standards (to avoid another CVS disaster), his efforts with Sonoma World Friends to bring exchange students to our city, and his support for rebuilding Sebastopol’s depleted emergency financial reserves. Perhaps I was most proud of working alongside him with Rebuilding Together Sebastopol, performing free repairs and accessibility modifications to the homes of low-income citizens in our community.

Barry, you yourself have pointed out; “…the notion that someone is able to change their mind should be appreciated rather than scorned.” It sounds like good advice.

I am proud to call Vice Mayor Slayter my colleague on the Sebastopol City Council.

I express my gratitude to our two elected officials, Vice-Mayor Patrick Slayter and City Council member John Eder, for speaking up, here on wacco. They have to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of us, having taken the oath of their office. They have to be accountable to both their values and the electorate. It is much easier for those of us not elected to serve. Their appropriate responses on this thread are examples of government transparency.

Some of us, such as myself, are better functioning outside the limitations of having to run a city. I would never run for public office. I perceive Patrick to be an introvert and therefore an atypical politician. I appreciate his integrity and willingness to reveal below the process he went through with CVS. Being a City Council member is not easy work. I have a concern that potential future candidates for office, particularly younger people, may be discouraged by the continuing attacks on sitting City Council members.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Patrick Slayter::

CVS. Those three letters can illicit more emotion, disdain and intrigue than almost any others in Sebastopol’s history....

---