Local Blogs

The Observer

By Roz Rogoff

E-mail Roz Rogoff

About this blog: In January 2002 I started writing my own online "newspaper" titled "The San Ramon Observer." I reported on City Council meetings and other happenings in San Ramon. I tried to be objective in my coverage of meetings and events, and...  (More)

View all posts from Roz Rogoff

Open government, closed minds

Uploaded: Apr 26, 2012
I've been trying to find out more about this HOV Ramp project proposed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). I attended the Scoping Session last November, which was to present the history and purpose of this project. I expected the usual two or three residents, a handful of City and County employees, and a Councilmember or two who usually attend these kinds of government meetings. Instead the room was packed with opponents egged on by Jim Gibbon and his San Ramon for Open Government organization.

Now I love Jim Gibbon. I appreciate his passion for what he believes in and his activism against what he doesn't, but his San Ramon for Open Government is a closed organization open only by invitation and accessed through a mailing list and secret password. Even though I asked Jim to help save the Mudd's building, and he has been very helpful in that project, I am not a member of San Ramon for Open Government and I don't ever expect to be (nor do I want to be).

Many residents living near Norris Canyon Road don't want the HOV ramps. Those who attended the Scoping Meeting didn't want to hear what the CCTA representatives had to say, and didn't care if anyone else there (like me) wanted to hear it. So the speakers were shouted down and prevented from giving their presentation. One of their complaints was this plan was foisted on them fully grown without their input.

But the purpose of the meeting was to introduce CCTA's plans and get input from the residents. This wasn't something that popped out of nowhere. CCTA started working on plans for spending Measure C half-cent transportation tax many, many years ago. Measure C was passed in 1988 and reauthorized in measure J in 2004.

CCTA published proposals, timelines, studies, and reports over the last ten years and these are all available to anyone who wanted to find them. That's the trouble with open government. The door is open, but if you want to see what's inside you have to make the effort to go inside.

California has had an open meeting act, known as the Brown Act, for over 50 years. The agendas of all government meetings must be posted in a public place 48 hours before the meeting.

With the internet and cable TV and other means of mass communication, streaming video or audio of meetings can be provided live, in real time. I occasionally watch C-Span which is the Federal Congressional station where you can see what Congresspersons and Senators are really saying about bills and proposals and not what is in their political fliers or attack ads against their opponents. It could be an eye opener to those who get predigested sound bites from "news" stations with a political agenda.

Since the CCTA was not able to continue their presentation at the Scoping Meeting, I went to the Workshop in March at the City Center. I expected this to be more interactive with breakout sessions for the neighbors to discuss the options under consideration.

Instead it was worse than the first meeting. Angry neighbors again shouted down the speakers and prevented CCTA employees from getting more than 10 minutes into their presentation. Residents in the audience wanted to ask questions, but they only wanted the answers they liked and the only answer they liked was for CCTA to go away and drop the project.

Even when the CCTA consultant said they were considering the alternate exit at Executive Parkway, which I thought would solve their fears of traffic clogging up Norris Canyon, going West into their residential neighborhood, or making the overpass unsafe for children and pedestrians (even though it would be widened with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides and increased earthquake safety), the opponents didn't want to hear about it.

A group of residents opposed to the HOV ramps spoke in public comment at the April 10th City Council meeting to object to the Council's approval of the project and to asked for the item to be put on the agenda of an upcoming meeting. Their goal was to reverse the Council's acceptance of the project.

I expected to see this item in the agenda for the April Policy Committee meeting and I planned to attend it to ask that the CCTA representatives would be allowed to give their complete, uninterrupted presentation at the Council meeting because I wanted to hear it, and I thought it should be included in the televised meeting so anyone else who wanted to know their side of it could without being blocked by residents who wanted CCTA to go away and leave them alone.

I was surprised to see the item on the April 24th City Council meeting agenda. I phoned Transportation Manager, Lisa Bobadilla, and asked if she could have the CCTA representatives there to give the presentation they have not been able to give for the last four months. Lisa said they would be at the meeting to give an update on where the project is at this time and answer Councilmembers questions.

I was very impressed that Lisa Bobadilla put this together so quickly and professionally. The meeting was very civil and informative. Even the residents who objected to the project spoke in public comment with reason and courtesy, which was not the case in the two previous meetings I attended.

As far as open government goes, it's all there in the videos on the City's website. The newest feature is Video on Demand of City Council meetings. You can click on a meeting and select the agenda item to view. This makes it as easy as possible to find out what your city government is doing, even if you cannot attend the meetings in person.

If you don't like what government is doing, go to the meetings or write an email and say "I don't like what you are doing," but don't prevent someone else who might like it from knowing about it.

Councilmember Phil O'Loane, who ran on an Open Government platform, said at the April 24th meeting that there are people in the Norris Canyon neighborhood who support the HOV ramps but are afraid to say so. That's a shame. That's not what open government should be about.

Comments

 +  Like this comment
Posted by Jim Gibbon, a resident of San Ramon,
on Apr 30, 2012 at 2:45 pm

Roz,
The more open government you see today in San Ramon is in no small major the result of groups like San Ramon for Open Government. Its objective has always been to open up San Ramon government to scutiny in order to better represent the views and interest of the residents of San Ramon.

This openness has only come about with the election of two new council members, Bill Clarkson and Phil O'Loane. Our work won't be done until we achieve truly representative government. For twenty years this city has been run as a closed club of council insiders and a city staff bent on growing their power and growing this city to something unrecognizable to its own residents. We have finally got to a time where their objectives have become apparent and objectionable.

It is obvious to any one listening that we are headed to be another Dublin with big box buildings like you see along I-680. San Ramon for Open Government is only a catalyst for change and hopefully a common ground for groups to communicate to each other and help each other represent the residents in San Ramon.

I hope we can make the changes in San Ramon government in the next couple of years that will be able to change our course for the better, a government that has a different reason to exist.

Jim Gibbon AIA, LEED AP
San Ramon for Open Government


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Apr 30, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.

Jim,

I accept your desire for a more open City Council, but we tried that ten years ago with Nancy Tatarka, Jerry Cambra, and Donna Dickey, who billed themselves as the Council that listens, but they only listened to their friends and each other.

Their Council meetings went on into the wee hours of the morning and either nothing was done or they wasted a truck load of money.

While I do not want San Ramon to turn into what Dublin has become, I also want to be sure we are fiscally solvent and can support the services residents expect.

I suppose it's different for long-term residents like you. You moved here over 30 years ago when San Ramon was still rural. I moved here 15 years ago when San Ramon was suburban. Yes some parts of San Ramon could become more urbanized over the next 10-20 years, but isn't that what you want?

You want to increase low cost, affordable housing near mass transit. That's what the NCRSP is designed to do. I didn't see you at the Greenbelt Alliance Supervisors' Debate on April 12th, but Sean White, who fits the kind of candidate you like, sung the praises of living in a high density apartment near a BART.

San Ramon can have it both ways. Your house and my house are still suburban, but why not add some apartments in the downtown where folks who want or need to live there can walk or bike to work and shops? This really doesn't change where the rest of us live.

Roz


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Bob P, a resident of another community,
on May 4, 2012 at 3:28 pm

Roz, unfortunately the current definition of 'smart' growth is growth that occurs someplace else.

I grew increasingly frustrated in dealing with the different factions in San Ramon, although I became more amenable to reasonable compromise with the different groups when their suggestions made sense. If you track through the different philosophies that tend to be espoused as development is proposed, planned and implemented you definitely see some inconsistencies in what they really want.

During the General Plan Review Commission days, prior to the "gang of 3", the slow growth advocates pushed for 'infill' development to accommodate the affordable housing requirements that the state was demanding. Some of this infill was exactly what the NCRSP is proposing now. Yet, those same slow growth proponents are against it.

The only conclusion I could draw is that they wish to become obstructionists rather then visionaries, with the mind set that if they stall something long enough, it won't happen. That is sad, because it really defeats the purpose of their so called 'open government'.

There were many of us, and there probably are still some, who feel that we moderate thinkers are put into a lose-lose situation. When we disagree, we aren't listening. Ultimately, us middle of the road, white line walkers, either get run over by the bus or we make our voices heard for quality, well thought out planning decisions. That was always my goal.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on May 4, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.

Come home, Bob, we need you.

Roz

PS See my latest commentary on the uselessness of EIR's



Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Follow this blogger (Receive an email when blogger makes a new post)

SUBMIT

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 30 comments | 1,951 views

Endorsement thoughts
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 1,295 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 587 views