Dear Thornton Consolo:
At a recent council meeting you stated that you objected to something I'd said at a previous meeting. Then you described what you thought I meant and how disappointed you were in your "impression" of what I had said. Unfortunately you hadn't asked me for clarification. If you had, I'd have told you what I meant and why I said it. By the way, you guessed wrong. But you're not the first.
I have listened to strangers, casual acquaintances and friends at city council meetings make broad brush statements about the council's thinking, motivations and viewpoints. With few exceptions, these folks have never asked me if I would explain what I am thinking about a given issue. A simple, "Would you meet me for coffee and talk about your opinion on …" Or, "I see you voted in favor of XYZ. Would you have time to explain why?"
I'm not talking about arguing here. I'm talking about exchanging information, honestly, candidly and without the intention of badgering one another, looking "smarter than," or even persuading. How nice it would be to truly experience a valuing of diversity. I can honestly tell you that I will respect your right to think differently than I do, to hold other opinions and to express ideas that are opposed to mine without considering you perverse, evil, self-serving or stupid. Can you do the same?
When the council is addressing issues our job is to "listen" to the public and to try to reserve judgment until we've weighed all of the information. Most council members try to give insight into their thinking and provide rationale for their vote. However, it is often not possible to go into lengthy explanations and never prudent to engage in heated debate.
Thornton, had you called me to ask, "what did you mean when you said … ?" I would have been able to explain my underlying thinking. You may not have agreed with me, but at least you would have had accurate information.
As for your particular guesses about my comment regarding the Jackson Rancheria and the former Gold Creek project, I can only say you were mistaken. Contrary to your assumption, building is not more important to me than the people who live here.
The point of my comment was simply this. In a free market economy and a democracy where private property rights are respected if not revered, land "for sale" will eventually sell. This is what happened with the 1,000 acres that was at one time the proposed site of the Gold Creek development. I won't argue the pros or cons of that development. The referendum process was used to put the project before the voters. The referendum passed - the project was denied. The land was later purchased by the Jackson Rancheria and is now being developed for residential and commercial purposes by that sovereign nation. This type of development is not subject to the same taxation or impact fees as private development. If you've driven up Highway 88 recently, you have no doubt witnessed some of the "impact" for which the city of Jackson collects no recreation, traffic, infrastructure or other impact mitigation fees. My point was not to pick on the Rancheria. I note the generosity of the tribe to the local community. But before we wave a banner over the success of that referendum, perhaps we had better look again at the result. We have impacts; we impose no impact mitigation fees.
People who know me well have heard me ask, "Do you want to know what I think?" before expressing my opinion on personal matters. I employ the same philosophy on public issues and controversial topics. That said, I am happy to talk about my viewpoint, ideas, concerns and opinions. So please, if you want to know what I think, just ask me. You can e-mail me at the city: info@ci.jackson.ca.us or just pick up the phone and call me at my home office number: 257-1545. Maybe we can meet over coffee?