Curb Rights/Complexity

Activists List
1

The problem as I see it is that we are attempting to have a full
discussion that accommodates the divergent views of our activists
(which is good) without having adopted a democratic and readily
understandable procedure for moving the process forward (not so good).
Consequently, progress has been slow, and to the extent things are
apparently being decided, there is some confusion over how these
decisions are being made and -- since nothing specific was voted on in
writing -- doubt as to whether the results are consistent with what was
previously expressed.

  Although we got off to a bad start (in my opinion) by not voting as a
group on which initiative to pursue, I think it is not too late to
start using a formal (weighted?) voting process tied to a timetable in
order to craft this initiative in a transparent manner that allows
everyone meaningful input and moves the process forward faster than it
has been moving so far.

  Marcy has listed four (now three?) choices for how a curb rights
initiative might be structured, and appears to be tallying votes. Is
this a formal group vote? If so, when is the deadline for voting? Is it
a straight majority vote? Will there be other votes on the structure of
the initiative? If not, can this choice (choosing between homeowner
curb leasing, a non-profit, or neighborhood associations managing the
plan) reasonably be assumed to cover the most salient and controversial
aspects of the proposed initiative, or will there be other aspects
we're not voting on that may prove to be equally or more contentious
within our group?

  Here are a few other things to consider:

-Consultation with an attorney or attorneys in drafting the initiative
-Consultation with the City Attorney's office
-Appointing someone to manage the initiative and giving him or specific
responsibilities (e.g. building and maintaining a list of who is
committing to gather how many signatures or donate how much money);
give this manager extra say in deciding on the wording of the
initiative in exchange for his/her effort?
-Budgeting LPSF money for various stages of the initiative effort?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

On Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 09:08 PM, Amarcy D. Berry wrote (in
part):

"I am also getting concerned that this initiative is getting too
complex." [David Rhodes] Yes it is, principally due to efforts to
accommodate the
divergent views of our Activists. The more we move toward a common
ground, the less complex the initiative will be.

...

"The initial proposal over a month ago was to de-regulate the cab
industry." [David]
This approach was discussed, but never put into writting. Phil's text
addressed
curb rights for an alternative transport mode, leaving the existing
infrastructure in place.

Separately, Marcy wrote (in part):

NARROWING THE CHOICES WE DISCUSSED:

1. Choice No 1 - Government Commission elected by the public: "Off
the desk." [Most of us revealed that our hearts were not on the idea
of creating a government entity.]

2. Choice No 2 - Neighborhood Associations: "more unusual than the
legitimacy, in the public eye, of a [public] vote.

3. Choice No 3 - Homeowners chosing to lease their own curbs: "Does
not really serve the purpose of [public] transit."

4. Choice No 4 - Non-Profit, composed of board members elected by
the neighborhoods. [I agree with Phil, this seems to be the best
alternative.]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for
anyone who cares about public education!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

2

Hi Starchild,

Welcome back from L.A. You mentioned the 4 approaches to curb rights
that I posted a while back. In an effort to overcome the impasse
created by the fact that one or another Activist had serious
reservations about one or another of the approaches, Phil scrapped
the entire idea of leasing curbs and proposed a new version of the
proposition. I would like to have your thoughts about that version.
Phil titled that e-mail "Eating crow".

Regarding your suggestion from the beginning of this endeavor that we
adopt a formal weighted, voting procedure, it is my opinion that
voting is not brain surgery, you either vote or you do not; you
either get involved or you do not.

You ask if there is a deadline for voting. The voting on the table
right now is whether to adopt or not adopt the new version of the
initiative referred to above; i.e, vote yes if you like it, vote no
and give your reasons if you do not like it. The old version
generated an increadible amount of yaketi-yak, but no agreement on
any point from those of us who offered comments; thus, as far as I
can see, the old version is out.

If you would like to write up a formal voting procedure to address
the voting now on the table, please do. If your procedure generates
actual votes, not more divergent discussion that will produce another
impasse, I will be forever, eternally grateful to you.

Regarding seeking advice from attorneys etc, I would think that first
we need to agree on what it is that we are proposing.

Regards,

Marcy

--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:

  The problem as I see it is that we are attempting to have a

full

discussion that accommodates the divergent views of our activists
(which is good) without having adopted a democratic and readily
understandable procedure for moving the process forward (not so

good).

Consequently, progress has been slow, and to the extent things are
apparently being decided, there is some confusion over how these
decisions are being made and -- since nothing specific was voted on

in

writing -- doubt as to whether the results are consistent with what

was

previously expressed.

  Although we got off to a bad start (in my opinion) by not

voting as a

group on which initiative to pursue, I think it is not too late to
start using a formal (weighted?) voting process tied to a timetable

in

order to craft this initiative in a transparent manner that allows
everyone meaningful input and moves the process forward faster than

it

has been moving so far.

  Marcy has listed four (now three?) choices for how a curb

rights

initiative might be structured, and appears to be tallying votes.

Is

this a formal group vote? If so, when is the deadline for voting?

Is it

a straight majority vote? Will there be other votes on the

structure of

the initiative? If not, can this choice (choosing between homeowner
curb leasing, a non-profit, or neighborhood associations managing

the

plan) reasonably be assumed to cover the most salient and

controversial

aspects of the proposed initiative, or will there be other aspects
we're not voting on that may prove to be equally or more

contentious

within our group?

  Here are a few other things to consider:

-Consultation with an attorney or attorneys in drafting the

initiative

-Consultation with the City Attorney's office
-Appointing someone to manage the initiative and giving him or

specific

responsibilities (e.g. building and maintaining a list of who is
committing to gather how many signatures or donate how much money);
give this manager extra say in deciding on the wording of the
initiative in exchange for his/her effort?
-Budgeting LPSF money for various stages of the initiative effort?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

(in

part):

> "I am also getting concerned that this initiative is getting too
> complex." [David Rhodes] Yes it is, principally due to efforts

to

> accommodate the
> divergent views of our Activists. The more we move toward a common
> ground, the less complex the initiative will be.
...

> "The initial proposal over a month ago was to de-regulate the cab
> industry." [David]
> This approach was discussed, but never put into writting. Phil's

text

> addressed
> curb rights for an alternative transport mode, leaving the

existing

> infrastructure in place.

Separately, Marcy wrote (in part):

> NARROWING THE CHOICES WE DISCUSSED:
>
> 1. Choice No 1 - Government Commission elected by the

public: "Off

> the desk." [Most of us revealed that our hearts were not on the

idea

> of creating a government entity.]
>
> 2. Choice No 2 - Neighborhood Associations: "more unusual than

the

> legitimacy, in the public eye, of a [public] vote.
>
> 3. Choice No 3 - Homeowners chosing to lease their own

curbs: "Does

> not really serve the purpose of [public] transit."
>
> 4. Choice No 4 - Non-Profit, composed of board members elected by
> the neighborhoods. [I agree with Phil, this seems to be the best
> alternative.]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/