Reader beware: Yolo Sun article funnels city's parking propaganda
Ordinarily, the Woodland Journal would simply post excerpts and a link to Yolo Sun articles. This story however, called "Parking Plays Pivotal Role for Courthouse Site – Multi-Level Garage Structure Appears Inevitable, Uncertain Cinema Scenario Affects Parking Study" contains too many factual errors to let go without scrutiny.
The following statements from the article are not true:
Yolo Sun reported: "The pivotal reason that WRDA must now become involved is that apparently, the state doesn’t specifically recognize potential contingencies for parking garages within its process of project and budgetary purview — only surface parking.”
Fact: See page five of the Trial Court Capital-Outlay Plan that is contained in the Judicial Branch AB 1473 Five-Year Infrastructure Plan Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The state clearly specifies a budget total of $458,892,500 for courthouse parking structures. The state made an error in its initial planning for the New Woodland Courthouse and did not include any money for a parking structure here.
Yolo Sun reported: "If this parking was installed within conventional, surface lots: five acres — two full city blocks within Woodland’s downtown area — adjacent to the new courthouse facilities would become engulfed in asphalt." And – "The logic is: (a) the new courthouse must be located in downtown Woodland, (b) Woodland will avoid losing the courthouse or winning an asphalt sea for its downtown area..."
Fact: The state has never proposed five acres of continuous asphalt to cover the downtown. Surface parking can be achieved by using existing parking spaces. Downtown Woodland has 2,251 (see below).
Yolo Sun reported: "Reimbursement thus seems especially likely — because the proposed parking garage will cost only about $7 million ($20,000 per space in a 350 space garage)." And "Even factoring in the land cost (uncertain at this time), it seems there is ample funding available for this project – from state and federal sources – inclining matters toward substantial WRDA reimbursement."
Fact: There are no contracts or agreements with any local, state or federal agency to reimburse the city for building a parking garage. There are no concrete plans for a garage and therefore no estimates. The 350 space garage is short of what the state has said they need for parking (420 to 430 spaces, down from 668 that the city staff was originally trying to sell council).
Yolo Sun reported: “In this case,” relates Shallit, “the courts project will bring $160 million dollars to Woodland. It will stimulate job creation, new business development and re-energize downtown."
Fact: The courts are already here. They are already bringing dollars to Woodland with the existing 1,226 downtown spaces provided by the city, 220 spaces provided by the county and a total parking inventory of 2,251 within Elm, North, Fourth and Lincoln.
Yolo Sun reported: “The amount [of money] the state has set aside for (surface) parking acquisition is about $8 million, which they can use to reimburse us for acquisition and construction,” Shallit continues."
Fact: That is just simply false. According to two state sources the $8 million is the total the state has budgeted for total land acquisition of the courthouse project. About $2.8 million is allocated for surface parking. The state WILL NOT mix these funds with construction of a garage.
This is just a portion of the erroneous information that has been siphoned from the city through the Yolo Sun. The Woodland Journal encourages other reports and other views on community issues... if the reports and views are based on facts. In this case, Yolo Sun is clearly a conduit for unchecked propaganda. Reader beware.
Posts
42 comments:
I tried reading the article but kept stumbling on nonsense like "It’s truly a case of transforming a potentially devastating feasibility dilemma into a classic redevelopment opportunity."
I also tried to see who is behind the Yolo Sun. Couldnt find a name except cynthia shallit who wrote the only comment to the missiion statement "Nice writing! Helpful and informative."
Looks like some mutual back scratching going on.
~Dick Tracy
Dick,
Bobby Harris publishes the Yolo Sun and writes the stories. I don't know why that information is not on his blog. I must say I was surprised at his inattention to detail on this particular story – at least the courthouse and parking part of it. The bias was straight from the city's mouth... as if they wrote it themselves.
The story disregards state documents and basic facts. It simply reiterates the city's myopic vision of a garage. I'm okay with the bias – my coverage of the issue has a clear bias – but to present a side with a distortion or ignorance of the facts is just as bad as the city just going full steam ahead with no public checks and balances.
Here is what is fundamentally wrong with the city's position: The idea of a garage (nine years old according to Deven) is to provide parking for the courts and for a theater that Petrovich wanted to build but all justifications for it falls under the pretense that the downtown needs it.
The city has claimed a garage will attract 475 jobs. This includes an idea to build a retail shopping mall as part of it – something I would guess that most taxpayers or downtowners don't know – and 295 jobs are supposed to come with that. So the logic is false... build a garage so that there will be parking for a retail center that will need parking for itself. Okay... so what happens to all the spaces that are supposed to be for the courts?
I will admit that a garage that is intended for the daytime use of the courts will be maximized if a theater can use it too. But who pays for the garage? It should be the entities that will be using it. Most of downtown will not benefit from a garage at one location.
The other bit of untruth portrayed in the story is the flippant insinuation that a garage will save five acres of asphalt. Now the city is using a budget line item that the state generated as a justification for retail build-out formulas. Shallit emailed me and said, "those jobs are calculated by considering full build-out on the acreage that would be saved from being paved over for surface parking by building a garage."
The story also perpetuates the myth that the courts will bring in so much extra revenue ($160 million will come to Woodland). Where does that figure come from? The courts are already here. They are already generating income from employees, visitors and jurors. At best the new courthouse will add one or two more courts... those can't possibly generate $160 million to the local economy.
The budget to BUILD the courthouse is $173 million. Sure, that will bring construction workers to Woodland... but do you build a garage for people building something?
Lastly, if its true, it is very interesting that the "parking study" has a goal: "During the recent public gathering noted above, to elicit comments on this subject, consultant Fehr & Peers principal, Bob Grandy, emphasized that the desired result is a project that “has parking for shared use, a good mix of uses — an efficient parking facility.”
Doesn't sound like much of a study if you're trying to justify a goal with a desired result. I don't know... when I was in college a study implied some sort of scientific analysis.
So sad. It is shocking how little vision many people have.
Take the parking structure saga and put two columns on a piece of paper. In the left column write all of the harm (real harm only) that will come from a parking structure. In the right column write the list of benefits. Once you have finished this list consider how Woodland has changed over the last 25-years and add to each column what the harm and benefits of the parking structutre are over the next 25-years.
When this list is completes and if you are honest, I do not see how you can be against our first parking strucutre, wherever located in the downtown.
This my friend is the only fact to consider. All the dialog about cost, location, and funding are just red herring's for someone who is not getting their piece of the action.
8:31
It amazes me each time someone directs me to do something so that I will become enlightened. Why don't you make a such a list?
I can make a very lengthy list for your left side, made by a string of millions of dollar bills. If you have read my articles, you would know facts about the courthouse/theater parking... as well as my opinion that a garage is fine with me as long as the city (and each local taxpayer) does not pay for it. RDA money will be better spent on other ways to improve downtown - not to subsidize the special interests of the state and one private developer. One big garage will not service the entire downtown. It will be filled with jurors M-F, 9-5. If a theater can use it at night, that's who will use it, not Morrison's customers, not Tazzina customers, not Bangkok customers.
The City Lofts project will have a garage. That is perfectly fine with me. The city also has approved the number of spaces for that project... so apparently there is adequate parking for the vicinity. If more were needed for the benefit of downtown, why aren't they included?
You "my friend" are blinded by smoke and mirrors. And that is what is sad. Look around and pay attention, you might notice some things.
(BTW... your accusation of red herrings is your FACT? You're brilliant.)
I am very grateful Bobby Harris has gone to these public meetings. I also have it on first hand knowledge that he has had many one-on-one interviews with our city officials. His report is truthful, and complete. If anyone wants to effect change to the facts Bobby has, let them do similar investigating and interviewing.
Dino, you wrote back to Dick with this response "I must say I was surprised at his inattention to detail on this particular story – at least the courthouse and parking part of it. The bias was straight from the city's mouth... as if they wrote it themselves."
I see it this way , don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. These facts you dispute Dino, come directly from our city leaders.
Now, after all that, I still agree with you Dino. I DO NOT want our tax dollars used un-wisely. I do not think we should pay a penny for a parking structure. The city has NO concrete ideas. I totally agree that the city is using fuzzy math to come up with, or make up their conclusions.
Dino, aren't you happy to be getting information directly from the horses mouths? I don't smell a conspiracy between Yolo Sun and The City of Woodland. Nothing there, period. At least now I have little doubt the city is as disfunctional as I had suspected. They are still just making things up as they go.
Bobby, please tell us why you do not use your identity on your blog. You have explained it to me, as I have asked you in the past.
Harold
Dino - Benefits Are As Follows
1. A Parking Garage can have bathrooms for the parolees and homeless so they will have a place to dump rather than behind my store.
2. We can attract more Bail Bonds Downtown and other fine related businesses (Per Cynthia Shallit - City of Woodland Re-Development)
3. It will employee over 300 people from Clark Pacific Precast
4.City Council can get more buy ins from developers for their next election
5. It will give the trolls somewhere to sleep and another mission in life
6. The homeless will have a large shade structure
7. Jobs - Toll Booth etc...
8. Job Security for Police, gives em something else to monitor for grafetti
No Shit Sherlock
I'm trying to figure out why anyone cares. It's a parking structure. What's the big deal?
Harold,
I never disputed Bobby interviewed city staff. So have I.
I have received the same information Bobby has. And I've investigated, researched and interviewed people from the state and from the county. That's how I know there are errors in the story. That's how I know the story is not truthful.
Bobby may have been accurate in reciting what the city officials have told him... but that's the problem. What they are saying is not accurate. Therefore the story is not accurate.
It's not investigative reporting if you simply post what they (city officials) are pitching without questioning it. The facts aren't coming from the city... don't you get it?
The funny thing is, I provided Bobby links to DIRECT information from the state. He chose not to use that information. He's the one who said that the state does not "recognize potential contingencies for parking garages within its process." I explained to him, in person, that the state has a $459 million budget for court parking structures... AND I showed it to him on my computer screen AND emailed the link to him. And so on with the rest of the information he chose to report.
Don't shoot me because I'm not content to take things I hear DIRECTLY from the city and believe them. I did my research.
4:58
Because the city wants to spend millions of dollars on something it doesn't need.
Harold,
There were a couple of other things I questioned about Bobby's story. Here is my DIRECT communication with Mark Deven who clarified some misinformation in the article:
I asked: Can you address the following report made by Bobby Harris at the Yolo Sun Web site – "Beginning in 2011, the WRDA budgets about $48,000 annually to support a “multi-plex theater” project. Gradually, this amount increases to arrive at about $56,000 annually by 2019."
Deven replied: "This $48,000 is the estimated Tax Increment income from a multiplex theatre. It is not a subsidy. If a multiplex theatre does happen, we have projected the potential income."
I asked: "Can you also explain this report – $5 million of redevelopment funds (most of the agency’s recent $6 million bond) have been budgeted in 2010, for land acquisition, contract services and other costs related to this project."
Deven replied: "This is the anticipated amount to be spent on acquisition and other costs associated with the courts project. While these are the costs we have assumed, the exact conditions for any such expenditure will require the Redevelopment Agency Board’s approval in a public meeting. These conditions are being discussed between City/Agency staff and the State."
You see... no subsidies as reported, no approval to spend $5 million on a garage and no agreement to pay that back even if it is budgeted.
7/13/09 8:31 AM
Benefits: Based on the extensive list Dino has already given us through all his research, those who benefit from a garage are the courthouse and a theater.
Harm: The harm is if the City of Woodland spends millions on a garage that only benefits the courthouse and theater.
My detective's hunch tells me that your comment about "red herring's for someone who is not getting their piece of the action" is from someone who has an interest in the garage. I would say youre someone in cahoots with the city.
~Dick Tracy
Response to Dick Tracy
I am not in cahoots with the city but I have seen other cities that have benefited from parking structures. A couple of benefits of parking structures are.
Reduces the land used for parking.
Allows more businesses to be close to public parking.
Improves convenience thus more people can be attracted to nearby businesses.
Just go to a couple of cities and see what has been done. Try Walnut Creek & Pasadena.
My recollection is the parking structure idea started with businesses complaining they needed more parking at no cost to them.
I think our businesses are important, why not support them?
8:21
List some existing businesses that need a garage.
7/14/09 8:21 AM
Nobody is questioning what a garage is and how it can economize land use. In fact, my sleuthing has detected thousands of garages between Walnut Creek and Pasadena and many of them are filled and are convenient to nearby businesses. So what?
You are missing Dino's point that the city should not buy and build a garage for the state. The state would benefit most from the garage so I agree that the state should be the one funding it.
~Dick Tracy
Dick Tracy
Are you really sure Dino's agenda is to keep the City from buying the state a garage?
Perhaps the agenda is much broader and the parking garage proposal is just one piece.
7/15/09 6:22 AM
I share your concern about Dino's hidden agenda. So far I have discovered his alliance with Mumbles, Flattop and The Mole. In the meantime, I understand his points about the garage. I don't understand that Bobby Harris character but I did some investigating on him too. This saying comes to mind "He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client”.
~Dick Tracy
6:22
The purpose of my coverage of the garage/courthouse issue is to disclose the process of how our taxes are used. I think I've done a good job in demonstrating a three-ring circus (state, county, city).
So you are correct, my "agenda" for the stories is NOT just "to keep the City from buying the state a garage."
Click here to see the Woodland Record section called "New Woodland Courthouse." There you will find most of my research on the issue. It is much more than simply keeping the city from buying the state a garage.
8:21
Still waiting for that list of existing businesses that need a garage.
Mister Tracy, Your investigation into Mister Harris' case should have uncovered that the DA and YONET illegally seized ALL his assets prior to a conviction. He could not afford to hire council. The court appointed lawyer was incompetent in Bobby's defense. The court's final ruling was that the case was dismissed. So, I guess Bobby DID defend himself and he was the victor. Bobby has a clean record. Sad thing is that he never got his property back. Funny how that works huh?
Dino does not like the information that Bobby has gleaned from our city officials. I understand that. This post on the Yolo Sun has produced a ton of information. Information we have not gotten from ANY media source to date. I have MANY more questions due to harris' post. Many are similar to Dino's.
I hope we can continue to dialogue with Mr. Deven and Ms. Shallit. Thank goodness we don't have the Kirkwoods and Munowichs types any longer.
I am looking forward to more information from Harris. I understand that it takes a while to get stories posted to the Yolo Sun, while being limited to just one hour a day for computer use at the public library.
Dino, as our economy eventually recovers, AND the City does their part in promoting businesses downtown, parking will return to being a problem. If we get a theater and courthouse downtown, parking will be a problem. A few years ago, many of my customers told me they had to circle the block more than once to find parking. I invited them to park in my private parking spot in the rear. Twice daily the restaurants on our block occupied every space.
I am hopeful that parking problem returns soon.
In the mean time I do believe the city must take a proactive approach to future parking needs downtown. Waiting until it becomes a problem is more reactive. Smart planning in the beginning saves us taxpayors the costly knee jerk responses that we got from our prior management.
1:11
I don't know if you're 8:21, or not. But it seems the only list you conjured up is the courthouse and the theater. So are you saying the city should provide parking for those two entities? Should the city speculate on a location for a parking structure and provide for future businesses? I think you're confusing proactive with something else. Being proactive to stimulate the downtown involves much more than buying a garage for the state.
PS: Instead of your customers circling the block twice, they should have circled two blocks once. That little parking inconvenience does not equal a multi-million dollar garage subsidized by the city. If the city built a garage in the areas it has located for the courts, would that help your customers park right in front of your business?
Sorry Dino I forgot to tell you I am not 8:21. You had asked 8:21 for existing businesses that need parking. They could not come up with examples. So I shared my experience with problem parking. I DO NOT think the city should pay a penny for a parking structure for either a cinema or courthouse.
If the State has money for acquisition of property and funding for the project, then that should be enough. Nothing needed from our City. If a cinema wants to come downtown, then they should have plans for parking as well.
I hope our city management will agree with me.
You posted this comment earlier in this string about " I explained to him, in person, that the state has a $459 million budget for court parking structures..." When I looked at that PDF, I noticed quite a number of counties that did not get funding for a parking structure. How do we lobby for that funding?
Harold
As I stated before, the Yolo Sun misreported that the RDA will provide "annual support" for the theater. I wrote the clarification made by Mark Deven that the figures represent expected income from sales tax.
And now I just got the RDA budget from Cynthia Shallit:
Expected sales tax revenue from a multiplex theater goes from $48,000 to $56,000 between 2011 and 2019.
Please note that the theater developer wants the city to pay for a parking garage to benefit the theater – and the city seems intent on providing that despite not having any agreements for payment.
Expected sales tax revenue from the City Lofts goes from $228,563 to $267,873 for that time period.
Please note that the City Lofts are paying for their own parking garage, yet look at how much the city has projected in sales tax revenue.
Also of interest: Expected sales tax revenue from the Cultural Center/State Theater is $0 for that time period.
Please note that the city expects that the State Theatre will be out of business.
Now that is community development for you.
Harold,
I have tried to get our state reps to weigh in on this... Yamada, Wolk and Nielsen. They have ignored the issue.
Yamada did respond at one time through email and phone, with a generic acknowledgement of the entire scope of the project. She missed the point and never engaged herself with that fact that other projects have garages funded.
The county supervisors have also ignored the issue... but that's for another reason. They promised property for the project but have since taken it off the table and won't negotiate with the state.
I've emailed each council member. I've spoken with Skip and Art and have continual email dialog with Jeff. Martie and Bill have ignored all communication regarding the courthouse project.
I've suggested to Mark and Cynthia that the state reps should be in on this to try and go after that parking budget. It's a problem because legislature has approved the budgets, so it will probably take a bill to rectify the lack of funds for a garage. And that is the same reason the city just can't say that the $8 million for land acquisition can be applied to a garage. It just doesn't work that way as explained to me by a senior planner in the Office of Court Construction and Management.
I think the key is going after Yamada, Wolk and Nielsen since the other lobbying does not seem to be hitting home with our locals.
Dino, in your 2:16 comment you refer to some line items in the RDA as "sales tax'. did you mean to write "property tax"?
I also think the Lofts do not provide enough parking. I think they are short dozens of spaces?
And correct me if I am wrong, but as long as the State theater does no improvements to their site, they won't generate any new property taxes that would go into Redevelopement fund.
As far as the city council goes, I wonder if they have any say in the matter at all?
Thank you for all your research. I find good information from both you and Bobby
Harold
If the City Center Loft will generate a quarter of a million in sales tax each year, the City should help build its parking structure. Drop the Court house project as the State is going to stiff the City in the end. They stiffed the County already, so why not the City. The Courts are the States responsiblity, let them build both Court Building and Parking Structue.
Harold and 8:02
I am verifying the tax increment. It is possible that it could be property taxes rather than sales tax.
I am also looking into the possibility that Barry Munowitch, after his golden handshake, will be hired back by the RDA as a private consultant for the garage project.
This be Kumar, having been read your tantilizing articles be it on the parking garage, I be thinking you blue eyed devils happen to be so spoiled with riches. My brother from another mother Harold might be certainly sharing the "special slurpy" as we call it, or speaking in your language hashish.
Dis most special parking garage does not service the City in any way, only to be servicing special interests, not the average immigrant. I be walking my ass off every day, no need to be parking near a courthouse when I visit my main st brothers. What about parking near the state theater, no where in site. Yet so many empty lots be sitting within a stonethrow.
Kumar, from Harold and Kumar
8:02 PM, The 1/4 million in "property tax" not "sales tax" would only be a drop in the bucket towards a parking structure. The Lofts project is still short in providing enough spaces. They should foot the bill for their own project. The same goes for the courthouse in my opinion.
The state will be spending nearly $8 million for just the space aquisition. Then they are spending nearly $160 million to build out the project.
Dino has pointed out that the state budgeted over $450 million for parking structures across the state. How come Yolo county got $0 dollars for parking?
Here's somthing to think about: Have the city build a parking structure for 5 million, then turn around and sell the space to the state for the 8 million they are willing to spend. We come out ahead then.
Harold
Harold,
I have two queries into the "property tax"or "sales tax" question. It makes sense that it would be property tax... however why would the RDA list the State Theater as $0? Even with Prop 13 they would pay some sort of property tax.
You said: "The Lofts project is still short in providing enough spaces. They should foot the bill for their own project. The same goes for the courthouse in my opinion."
As far as I know, they are paying for their own parking. But here's the rub... the city worked out the parking needs with them so apparently they are providing enough spaces for the neighborhood. Therefore, there must be no need for a garage (at least on that end of downtown). Remember there will be street parking available all around the block.
You said: The state will be spending nearly $8 million for just the space aquisition."
The $8 million for site acquisition is for the entire court project... $2.8 million of which is budgeted for parking. As I said before... according to the state planner... the state can't simply shuffle money around like you're suggesting.
You said: "Have the city build a parking structure for 5 million, then turn around and sell the space to the state for the 8 million they are willing to spend. We come out ahead then."
It doesn't work like that as I suggested, but the idea is great. Your idea makes sense to use all that available money but it's not like a general fund. This is why Yamada, Wolk and Nielsen need to push their weight around.
The city is currently in "speculation mode" - that is the trouble. A garage will cost X amount which the city does not have. They have NO commitments or agreements to pay them back. I do not think the city should speculate with our money that way.
Harold and 8:02,
Here is the answer to the tax increment question from Cynthia:
"Tax increment is the portion of property tax received by the redevelopment agency."
As a reminder... those figures of $48,000 to $56,000 are NOT subsidies provided to the theater as reported at the Yolo Sun.
BTW... Mark Deven has said NO to the question of Munowitch hired back as a private consultant for the garage project.
OK Dino, so both you and Bobby had trouble reading the same report. Crazy stuff huh??? Bobby listed income as an expense. You interpreted property tax as sales tax. Sales tax would go into general fund while a portion of this form of property tax stays in the Redevelopement Agency.
At least now, we seem to be mostly on the same page.
It seems to me Dino, that the State Theater has no current redevelopement plans. If and when that does occur, then they would generate property taxes for the RDA fund.
You asked this : "however why would the RDA list the State Theater as $0? Even with Prop 13 they would pay some sort of property tax."
They probably pay normal property taxes, just not Redevelopement Agency property taxes. It is my understanding that they would have to make qualified upgrades to their current location in order to qualify for RDA payments.
Oh, and good news about Barry :)
Harold
Harold,
I didn't have trouble reading the budget. It said tax increments, not subsidies. It did not specify sales tax or property tax, and neither did Mark Deven specify it when I first asked him (before I saw the budget).
There is quite a difference between an outgoing budget item (a subsidy) and an incoming budget item (tax revenue). My error in this thread was assuming a sales tax (which may have derived from a comparison of the quarter million sales tax revenue generated by another business on Main Street that is part of this theater equation).
Plus, I never included the tax increment revenues as part of an article that erroneously attributed those figures as an expense/subsidy. But thank you for helping to clear up that confusion caused by the Yolo Sun article.
And that is correct about the State Theater... as far as the RDA is concerned, the theater is not expected to make improvement to the property to generate RDA tax revenue. The question remains... why would the State Theater be grouped with the "Cultural Center" as part on one line item?
There are many "hidden" things going on within the city... which is why readers need to beware of an article that features unchecked information coming directly from the city.
7/15/09 12:57 PM
My investigation into the Bobby Harris character didn't go as far as what you shared. Your description doesn't sound like he was the victor if he ended up losing all his property.
My investigation did uncover a picture of the Bobby Harris character using a bong. That would explain his horrible writing and his less than accurate information.
After visiting the Yolo Son, I think I'll just contineu to get my news from this blog and the Daily Democrat.
~Dick Tracy
OK Mister Tracy. He didn't lose his property. It was taken from him illegally.
Part of the big picture around these parts is how our "three ring circus" (as Dino so aptly puts it) makes up the rules as they go.
Dino and others in our community are trying their best to shed light on the larger problems. Like wasting tax dollars un necessarily.
If smoking off a bong is that big of an issue to you, I am sorry. Just to let you know he is a patient under Proposition 215. That has been legal for more than a dozen years. He is breaking no laws.
His writing was not horrible, I understood every word. My suggestion would be to move beyond the Marvel Comics, Mr Tracy.
Bobby's writing was also very accurate. Dino had some mis understandings about some of the issues. This string has sorted some of them out.
Dino made the point that the state made an error in not funding a parking garage for Woodland. We found out that nearly a 1/2 billion dollars was allocated for parking structures. Woodland did not get any of those dollars. I am not sure how Bobby's report is flawed because of that fact.
We found out that the amount of parking spaces needed for the new courthouse would be equal to about five acres or two whole city blocks of surface parking spaces. Dino makes a point that his research shows the downtown streets have more than enough spaces already.
We found out that the city feels there is possibility for reimbursement for building a parking structure. Dino has pointed out that "It just doesn't work that way as explained to me by a senior planner in the Office of Court Construction and Management." I guess we will have to find out more details on that one :)
We found out that the state has set aside nearly $160 million dollars to build this courthouse here in Woodland. Dino does not see how that money comes here ON TOP of current income from the state. He feels it will not end up in our community.
I can not agree that Bobby's report is false. We did discuss a $50 K discrepancy to a budget line item. Good thing that is cleared up. All other facts reported by the Yolo Sun came directly from our city management. The report was factual and complete. I found it very impartial. Great reporting. Not every piece of news has to have a personal spin on it, in my opinion.
I will continue to read the Yolo Sun. I will continue to read this blog. I can not read the Democrat any longer. Good luck finding ANY news without errors there.
Harold
Harold,
In your response to Dick, you concluded the Yolo Sun article was factual and complete. You also said not every piece of news has to have a personal spin on it.
The Yolo Sun article is full of errors. I don't need to repeat them, but I can address your last comment.
I have no misunderstandings of Bobby's words. Many are false.
Bobby said the state has no budgets for garages. That is completely false. I reported as much on December 29, 2008. It is in the state's report. I directed Bobby to both of these resources.
Bobby said the state has a plan to create an asphalt sea of five acres. That is a biased statement and false. The Woodland Record has published many reports about the parking requirements of the garage in relation to the existing inventory. Again, I directed Bobby to resources that describe the state's plans.
Bobby's article did not say there is a $160 million budget to build the courthouse. He reported that the project will bring that amount to the community. That is falsely stated. The fact is the state's feasibility report includes options for the courthouse. The estimated total cost for the 141,000 square foot courthouse project is $172,940,000. I got that info from the state planner and also reported that back in December.
And the discrepancy that I didn't mention in the post, is a more critical error than you make out. The nearly $100,000 swing in the line item that Bobby mistakenly reported had to do with the city supporting a theater developer with a subsidy. That is a gross mistake. People reading that could assume that the city has promised a developer money for building a theater - outside any promises of building a garage for that developer.
And Bobby's article does have a personal spin to it. For whatever reason, he chose to ignore conflicting reports and state documents for the benefit of the city's position. I don't know what the motivation is, but the article is clearly biased. If you are just now learning about some of these points, it is obvious you haven't been following the Woodland Record articles. I've compiled them in one section of the Web site... and again, I directed Bobby to that resource.
Maybe it is the way he writes. You can't just put a bunch of figures in a Bingo machine and pull them out randomly. Perhaps some of his numbers are in the ball park, but he certainly did not present them accurately. I don't know what else to say, there are errors and I pointed them out. The bottom line is there are errors.
Shall I call you Mr. Head or just Dick?
Anyways you Dick, of all people should see the benefits of smoking a bong. Maybe if you smoked more bong Dick, you would drink less.
You know the state is going to legalize marijuana and make 1.4 billion dollars in taxes.
The garage will be a great place for us less fortunate to utilize restroom facilities. The park accross the street gets too hot to really sit and enjoy you time, if you know what I mean Dick. At high noon the playground equipment is too hot to lay on, so a garage will be perfect to take an afternoon nap in the shade.
Who cares who pays for it, Woodland, Yolo the State or the Theater. As long as it gets built for my pleasure. Besides, I have no idea who pays for all of my other medical and court needs anyways so whats the difference.
It is impossible to make people understand their ignorance; for it requires knowledge to perceive it and therefore he that can perceive it hath it not.
Jeremy Taylor (1613 - 1667)
Dino, agreed, there ARE errors in his report.
I just don't think there was intent to "funnel the city's propaganda". You and I don't see his report similarly. His attempt to give us readers the city's thinking on some issues, allows us readers to become better informed from the city's perspective on some issues. I like the fact that you have multiple questions about some of the information he got for us. I like reading the posts here on the Journal as well. I think BOTH you guys do a great job.
You can certainly poke holes in Bobby's report. This is your (and Jeff's) blog.
Painting the Yolo Sun in the same brush strokes as the Democrat, (by claiming Bobby is the mouthpiece for the city) is unfair. I know you did not actually write that. You just implied it.
I guess I don't understand why you had to bash (Reader beware:) his report. You and Bobby have different styles.
Listen, Woodland has almost NO journalism. As I see it You and Bobby are the ONLY voices around this town. I wish there were a ton more. The Democrat gets things wrong all the time. I can not stand to look at it anymore.
Basically your voice (in print) should NOT be the ONLY voice we get our information from. I know you agree with that.
We all know that you don't see eye to eye with the city. That's OK. I don't either. But I would not have a clue what some of the crazy things the city does without an inside report like this one from the Yolo Sun.
I know these issues intimately now. Because you brought my attention to the Yolo Sun article. I have followed your articles all along on the Journal. I must admit his report gave me much more information than I have gotten through the Journal. His "bingo machine" style of delivery, as you call it
was easy for me to understand. I am sure I am not the only one to think that way. You have made your point; City management has flaws. OK?
I guess I should thank you for bringing my attention to the Yolo Sun. :)
Harold
Hey Dick and Harry, get along!
Tom
Harold,
I clearly stated at the beginning of the post why I bashed the article: "Ordinarily, the Woodland Journal would simply post excerpts and a link to Yolo Sun articles. This story however... contains too many factual errors to let go without scrutiny."
I didn't bash his style. I called attention to bad information and there ended up being more than I listed. If that adds up to more information for you than any other source, that's for you to sort out. The Woodland Record has reported from all sides of the issue... city, county, state and private.
As far as the Bingo machine goes, it was in reference to the numbers he was using, not his style. The same numbers have been used in the Woodland Record articles, but with accuracy. In that regard, are you telling me that you understood the quote "the courts project will bring $160 million dollars to Woodland" as what you said "the state has set aside nearly $160 million dollars to build this courthouse?" As a reporter, knowing the information or at least knowing where the information is, wouldn't you clarify that? How will $160 million come to Woodland? Where is that information in the article?
I guess it's not enough to point out where the information is - as I did to Bobby previous to the Yolo Sun post. To me, it just wasn't good reporting, at least for this particular article. A good report would have included other information or sources if it was known. It was known... and I proved it.
Hopefully future articles at the Yolo Sun will not warrant such scrutiny. And I agree, there should be more "voices" making factual reports around Woodland.
Post a Comment