Whether or not she supports it wasn't something we could report on, because Councilmembers are not supposed to foreshadow their vote in quasi-judicial hearing. I realized that we hadn't mentioned that the email arrives while the PC is still mid-way through quasi-judicial deliberations so I added that to the article with a footnote about the addition a short time ago.
Time was short and we had to make a judgement call between providing minimal context and pushing it out so ir arrives prior to the Monday evening hearing, and holding it for research and analysis. We've written extensively about the E-Group Solar project and the article linked to some of that writing....we hoped that releasing it under City Hall 29 would find readers more familiar with the context. We're happy to answer questions here though!
It’s OK. I appreciate the work you’re doing. I was actually thinking that we might do a benefit/event together sometime. You guys are hyper-local and our magazine is national and international in our interests but we both started in 29 Palms. Which is cool…
Just wanted to add one more comment here, we also made a judgement call to not dispute Ramirez's characterization of the Commissioner actions in the meeting, instead letting our reporting and our recap of what was said do the talking -- we left it at her assertions being questionable. Seeing how the article is being characterized by the Council member's proxies on FB, perhaps we were too hands off.
I ended up writing additional analysis in response to comments on FB -- so here is that comment:
We also recommend watching the video of the February 17 Planning Commission meeting and asking if the Councilmember‘s characterization of the discussion is accurate. Here are some specific questions we had:
Under point one, she implies that Commissioners were not prepared for the discussion — there is always going to be varying levels of preparation when several hundred pages are dumped on a primarily volunteer body 4-5 days prior to a meeting. However most of the Commissioners asked detailed questions indicating preparation. Isn’t the true issue for the Councilmember that some those questions indicated skepticism of a project she appears to support?
Under point 2, the Councilmember implies that the benefit package “was accepted at the appropriate level” — this isn’t accurate. The benefits package was never presented as a discussion and action item at Council and was never voted on, the package will not be final until it is voted on at Council on Monday., March 23 Also Planning Commission members were not “renegotiating” the package — they were questioning whether the package was adequate given the amount of destruction and upheaval the land use was going to require -- why isn't that discussion under their purview?
Under point 3, the Councilmember implies that the Planning Commission was attempting to “cap or limit” profit. We again disagree with this characterization. Commissioner Krushat asked how much revenue the project was expected to generate. Asking about potential revenue is not the same as attempting to cap profit.
We also want to emphasize the Councilmember's letter was sent as an independent government body was mid-way through a quasi-judicial hearing -- no votes had been taken and the discussion was not completed at the point when the email was sent. So what is the true function of the email? Is it to school the Planning Commissioners on their roles or is it to suppress free speech that was questioning a project the Councilmember appears to support?
But again, we encourage residents to watch the meeting video and come to your own conclusions about whether the Councilmember's had legitimite basis for her "disappointment": "I will be candid: I was disappointed by the level of preparation and professionalism demonstrated during the recent meeting."
I find it funny that the same council woman who says that accountability only feels like an attack when you are unwilling to acknowledge your impact on others has repeatedly ignored citizens calling 5 times now to review the Flock contract. Does it only hurt others when the person in question is a rich landowner? Or does she also include harm done to citizens by failing to include the impact on them? Because it seems like she only cares about being accountable if there's a profit to be made.
I’m a little at sea here without more details and analysis. Does the person who sent the letter support the solar project? What’s really going on?
Pretty sure she does.
Whether or not she supports it wasn't something we could report on, because Councilmembers are not supposed to foreshadow their vote in quasi-judicial hearing. I realized that we hadn't mentioned that the email arrives while the PC is still mid-way through quasi-judicial deliberations so I added that to the article with a footnote about the addition a short time ago.
Time was short and we had to make a judgement call between providing minimal context and pushing it out so ir arrives prior to the Monday evening hearing, and holding it for research and analysis. We've written extensively about the E-Group Solar project and the article linked to some of that writing....we hoped that releasing it under City Hall 29 would find readers more familiar with the context. We're happy to answer questions here though!
It’s OK. I appreciate the work you’re doing. I was actually thinking that we might do a benefit/event together sometime. You guys are hyper-local and our magazine is national and international in our interests but we both started in 29 Palms. Which is cool…
Just wanted to add one more comment here, we also made a judgement call to not dispute Ramirez's characterization of the Commissioner actions in the meeting, instead letting our reporting and our recap of what was said do the talking -- we left it at her assertions being questionable. Seeing how the article is being characterized by the Council member's proxies on FB, perhaps we were too hands off.
I ended up writing additional analysis in response to comments on FB -- so here is that comment:
We also recommend watching the video of the February 17 Planning Commission meeting and asking if the Councilmember‘s characterization of the discussion is accurate. Here are some specific questions we had:
Under point one, she implies that Commissioners were not prepared for the discussion — there is always going to be varying levels of preparation when several hundred pages are dumped on a primarily volunteer body 4-5 days prior to a meeting. However most of the Commissioners asked detailed questions indicating preparation. Isn’t the true issue for the Councilmember that some those questions indicated skepticism of a project she appears to support?
Under point 2, the Councilmember implies that the benefit package “was accepted at the appropriate level” — this isn’t accurate. The benefits package was never presented as a discussion and action item at Council and was never voted on, the package will not be final until it is voted on at Council on Monday., March 23 Also Planning Commission members were not “renegotiating” the package — they were questioning whether the package was adequate given the amount of destruction and upheaval the land use was going to require -- why isn't that discussion under their purview?
Under point 3, the Councilmember implies that the Planning Commission was attempting to “cap or limit” profit. We again disagree with this characterization. Commissioner Krushat asked how much revenue the project was expected to generate. Asking about potential revenue is not the same as attempting to cap profit.
We also want to emphasize the Councilmember's letter was sent as an independent government body was mid-way through a quasi-judicial hearing -- no votes had been taken and the discussion was not completed at the point when the email was sent. So what is the true function of the email? Is it to school the Planning Commissioners on their roles or is it to suppress free speech that was questioning a project the Councilmember appears to support?
But again, we encourage residents to watch the meeting video and come to your own conclusions about whether the Councilmember's had legitimite basis for her "disappointment": "I will be candid: I was disappointed by the level of preparation and professionalism demonstrated during the recent meeting."
I am adding this as a footnote on the article.
I find it funny that the same council woman who says that accountability only feels like an attack when you are unwilling to acknowledge your impact on others has repeatedly ignored citizens calling 5 times now to review the Flock contract. Does it only hurt others when the person in question is a rich landowner? Or does she also include harm done to citizens by failing to include the impact on them? Because it seems like she only cares about being accountable if there's a profit to be made.