Are Blogs The Knife That Cuts Too Deep?

Everyone has read or been involved in lack of government transparency at some time in their life. Why didn’t someone tell me? When were they going to tell us? What reasoning went into this? Why? WHY?

In 2007, I was point in a skirmish with our local government over a lack of transparency, of deliberate opaqueness. This was the C&D issue; you would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to know about it. I gave up on the demand for transparency when the outcome was favorable.

Although many credit me with a so-called win, I do not know what went on to change every council members vote. I want to think it was me; that my sheer tenacious diligence won them over, but I know better. My efforts would have been useless without help behind that opaque curtain, help that changed the direction and outcome. The village acquiesced to what had become a combined resident/business community concern over the issue, but I was not sure how it happened.

During the whole time, I blogged furiously about everything I learned, everything I researched, everything I thought about. I ended up with a cacophony of a blog site, markthoman.googlepages.com, that was out of sequence, jammed with information, hard to follow, and packed with facts, presentations, commentary: a wild and woolly assault on not only the villages mistaken attempt to short circuit the EPA, but on orderly discourse, and rational organization. More than one friend said it was so hard to follow, it itself was guilty of not being transparent because of the effort it took to sort through it all.

What about blog transparency? I have been at the table in the blog backroom with Elaine Johnson, EJ as her site followers call her, creator and driving force behind DGreport.com. I cannot speak to her reasons for starting it, but it started during the 2006 election cycle. That contentious election, for mayor, for 58, and for 99, got people talking like never before. DGreport provided a public house on-line setting where candidates responded to questions that in turn were commented upon by any and everyone who wished. EJ also pumped out commentary and reports on politics and other topics, and any and all could have equal say.

At the same time, Bill White started up Wired Grove. He had multiple pages for different topics, and had a set of rules for posting that forbade personal attacks. There are still some posts up, in particular exchanges between Wes Jaros and a sock puppet, and Bill White, where the sock puppet ignores proper behavior, and an exchange between Bob Lemke and Phil Labat that shows the type of acrimony that ran as an undercurrent to the 99 campaign.

Bill attempted to impose fairly strict rules on his website, yet the only posts of any consequence were the aforementioned comment shouting matches. The site was poorly attended by candidates, most of whom failed to respond to his fairly straight up requests. His insistance an strict behavior, and those requests failing to hold, may have kept involvement down. The site has been 'dark' since May of last year.

On DGreport, EJ started out with similar restrictions, but was very adamant about her belief in free speech, and spoke directly to the need for manners and responsibility in "Runaway Train" where she picked her ideas and desires apart in front of her readers. She asked that people not get carried away with personal attacks, and was pretty much ignored by everybody, including Bill White from Wired Grove. The knives came out quick and often, and they cut away at both mayoral candidates failure to act on problems in their four and eight years on the dais. Proxies for both candidates traded blows on a regular basis.

A key difference for DGreport was the single main page topic track, and the (added later) single DGtalk track that made posting more concentrated, and easier to figure out. Some of those early topic starters had pretty sharp edges. EJ has kept DGreport.com up and running, adding news and commentary ever since, in addition to her column in the Sun, and her job as Mom. That is a lot of work for one person.

EJ is concerned that her blog, her baby, has become for too long too rough a playground. I sympathize with her concern. Some of the rough and tumble of the election has continued; not much, but what has continued, the most vitriolic, has bled into several discussions where it does not belong, and that is enough to cause concern. The knives have come out, and the cuts still get personal. Where EJ had sought exemplary transparency, she was, in some cases, getting oblique postings, sometimes near accusation of ulterior motive against some elected officials, in particular Mayor Ron Sandack and Commissioner Sean Durkin. At the same time many posters who appeared to use their real names seemed to drop off, leaving a core of real named, and a cast of anonymous, posters.

AP stopped taking any comments to their news stories years ago. The Tribune just recently ended comments on political topics. AP couldn't handle the amount of anonymous negative feedback to their articles, especially about the middle east. The Tribune never seemed to moderate at all; on-line article anonymous comment responses often descended into name calling.

Part of the implied deal when a site shingle gets hung out is that good and bad are part of the mix, and it is up to the moderator to act as sheriff. At DGreport, it is EJ's ‘e-village’ and she is the law. If you cannot live with that, move on.

I support my local sheriff, and I like the e-village. DGreport.com has some rough parts to it but it is growing up, and posters are growing up or moving on. As near as I can tell, most are growing up.

I’ve also been in the email back room with Mayor Sandack, talking about the propriety of anonymity and attack posts, about his desire for fact over fancy, of content and character over baseless rumor and ‘drive-by’ character assassination. These are legitimate concerns, and there are examples of both, the good and the bad, on DGreport.

I support my local mayor, and I like the village. Sandack has gone on public record in support of what he calls ‘ a fearless political environment’. As near I can tell, from personal first hand experience, he has walked the walk as we butted heads over procedure and intent on the C&D issue, and as we have talked about blogs and on-line commentary.

Sandack and Johnson are not alone nor incorrect in sizing up DGreport as a potential minefield for local government officials. Commissioner Martin Tully, as I have noted before, is one who has successfully negotiated this minefield on several occasions. I’m not surprised; he is a lawyer and a litigator. Part of his day job is successfully navigating legal minefields in the courtroom, with the other side’s litigators lobbing legal mortar shells at him as he does it. He chooses his words carefully, and makes considered comments.

Contrast that with, say, me. Ready, aim, fire, becomes ready, point in general direction, fire, check accuracy, aim, fire for effect: a mutated six sigma that usually has a misstep or two, but once I get zeroed in, I saturate that target.

The posts on DGreport vary from ready, aim, fire, all the way down to just FIRE! With no getting ready, no aiming, no concept of what the intent or outcome might be. That needs to change. As part of the growing process, posters whether they use their real name or not, need to up the goal of their comments and posts, myself included. That doesn’t mean we all become Dostoevsky, or Goethe, but that means we take a moment to consider the blowback of what we might say.

Contributions to discussion of topics and issues that effect us all can come from the dais, from the blogs, from the citizen groups, from the business community; I do not know them all. It takes time, it takes effort, it is worth it, and Elaine Johnson is trying to get a handle on it so it is fair; so that it does not result in posts and comments that hit too personal and that cut too deep. Does a poster make a point, or is it slashing and stabbing without thinking?

Acceptable: “I can’t believe Thoman thinks the shuttle should stay.”
Unacceptable: “Thoman is scum currying the favor of shuttle commuters.”

The difference, I hope, is obvious.

Acceptable: “Thoman’s actions are those of an arrogant spoiled child.”
Unacceptable: “Thoman is an arrogant spoiled child.”

This example is shaving it pretty fine. The acceptable comment draws an analogy to what a set of actions appear to be, the second merely calls names. There is a difference between ‘sticks and stones’ name calling, and sticking a knife in.

That does not mean there is no room for disagreement and dispute, or that any negative comment must be squashed. That is counterproductive to a main tenet of a website like DGreport: a fearless environment anyone can speak to anything, regarding Downers Grove or something else.

I intend to keep at it; I hope you do too. Along the way, if some more people notice, drop in to say their say, and even become regulars, that is a very, very good thing. In the meantime, put the knives away.

But as the saying goes, keep your powder dry.

Is DGreport “a vehicle of “mistruth”?

I read EJ’s comment made to her by an unidentified elected official that DGreport, her blogbaby, spread mistruths. One of my friends who frequents DGreport took me to task along a similar line. Anonymous posters can say any lie they want and not be held accountable. He was curious: why I would bother naming myself on DGreport when so many others do not?

I and others have used the term sock puppet for anonymous posters, and derided their anonymity as proof they were disingenuous; that they misspoke on purpose or to some agenda. Are they are too afraid to speak in public so they hide? District 58/99 elections were a good example of bad anonymous behavior. There have been inflammatory comments here as well on other tropics. A case could be made that there has been a misuse of the public trust.

Funny thing though, the anonymous posters, the bad ones, are having a hard time hiding as that blog goes on. Readers are getting wise to them. There is a growth curve involved, and this blog is growing and maturing.

Credibility is an issue with me. People know where to find me. They can email me, write me, call me; hell, they can show up at my door. Does that temper my comments? Nope. What it does temper is launching personal attacks on anonymous posters whose comment I take exception to. As a known named person, I have to ask myself: if I was talking face to face with this person, would I personally attack them? Nope.

But I have at DGreport.

When I started posting there, I took exception to some comments by posters, particularly Meat, and started to mix it up. I stopped, but never apologized. That was wrong: Meat, if you read this, I apologize for taking your remarks personally, and responding in kind. Two wrongs, both mine, didn’t make a right. I try and steer clear now, but the damage is done. We live with our mistakes, and sometimes we learn from them.

Slight tangent- If there are posters who are under 18, stay anonymous until you are legally adults, then decide if you want your name out here.

When a public official charges that ‘mistruths’ are spread, they may be right, they may be wrong, but they can always, always come into the discussion, named or anonymous, and present their case. Take the case of two anonymous posters crossing swords about the Liquor Commission and charges of ‘politics as usual’. DGDood made some claims, X01703, who claims to be a Liquor Commission member, refuted them. I looked into it, and posted up on it also. So did anonymous Ron Burgundy.

When it comes to the village, and all that concerns it, anonymity has a well-warranted good side. Highly sensitive topics like housing, the buses, local politics, development/redevelopment and other areas may be uncomfortable for us named persons to deal with, but the comfort to comment, to join the discussions may be possible and conductive only under sufficient confidentiality. If the goal is to have the best online discussions possible, to bring the largest number of people into the discussion, and to promote public discourse, anonymity increases the comment pool. What DGreport gains with anonymous posters is the wide range of opinions and perspectives that include not just regular posters, but first-time and very occasional visitors, coming into a discussion for the first time. They make it lively. Tell me my comments are as biting as Hellomoto. That would not be true, yet most of what he has claimed as fact is easily verifiable, and gets either vetted or outed accordingly.

Meat, stay Meat. Hellomoto, DGDood, DG_DA, Champ Kind, Ron Burgundy; stay anonymous, and keep contributing. If you step over the line you’ll take heat for that, and take a little heat for being anonymous too: so what. Facts have a tendency to shine light: the more the better. Opinions are important too, and anonymity makes those opinions easier to put out there, here, so they too can see the light of day and be scrutinized.

Trending the Future of Code Enforcement

A lot of people thought 4929 Forest unapproved building alterations were no big deal; not worth pursuing. No health hazard or safety issues were involved, and had builder Michael Prince come before village council (as he had twice already) asking permission in advance of changes (as required), they would have been granted.

Commissioner Waldack had reservations and made a motion that the walls be changed back to the original brick masonry. It died quietly for lack of a second, with no discussion about issuing 4929 Forest an occupancy permit with the condition Mike Prince not start another building until he finished changing back to the approved and spec'd masonry walls on this building.

Some changes and variances were granted the project in March 2007: allowing higher density (4 additional units) and smaller parking spaces. Some changes were not authorized; substituting brick for stone, changing the roof from a faux mansard, and changing wall construction in large areas from brick masonry, to "stucco".

That stucco is actually a Senerflex® Adhered Mat Design feature, manufactured by BASF Wall Systems. It is Tyvek, a mesh with cement, styrofoam (rigid) panels cut and placed to create walls, cornices, detail features, and then sprayed with a primer and a finish coat of acrylic polymer mud and you're done. Does it look good? It looks terrific.

The architect drawings show a cross section of the design. According to BASF's sales brochure, Senerflex®Adhered Mat Design is "used when an unobstructed plane is required to allow the exit of incidental moisture from the structure’s walls. It is ideal for retrofit over walls that are not suited to adhesive attachment." It comes with a seven year wear/seven year moisture warranty. Masonry typically will last forever with rare tuck pointing needs. Is it cheaper than brick? Yes. Initially.

There's the rub; cheap now for the builder, more expensive later for the homeowners. Michael Prince has moved some of the life-cycle costs of his building downstream into the future, where the cost is not his.

Note: remember this life-cycle costing concept. It is important to the village moving forward. More later...

Back to the trending issue at hand: does this start a trend, or change direction of a trend in our village?Is this a trend for how we want buildings built in downtown Downers Grove?

Acadia On The Green began life as a full four floor steel and masonry construction (like 4929 Forest BTW). It changed structure design when the National Building Code changed, and the top three floors were built out with wood, and a brick facade on the exterior walls. That was cheaper than a full steel and masonry building, the required design up until a couple years ago. And now this, changing 4929 Forest wall construction to save some construction costs, and to move things along faster.

That was a differently made up council, and they fared just as well as the current council, trying to figure out, as Commissioner Durkin so aptly fired off "How did this happen?"

The village council can bring to bear the long view of the Strategic Plan, and of the Total Community Discussion, to the process of legislating good codes, and of setting good policy. Good codes makes for clear direction; good policy makes for long term solutions. A wall guaranteed to last for seven years is not a long term solution.

Every builder in every town posts up a bond for their project; the bigger the project the bigger the bond. Village has the option of pulling any fines levied out of that posted bond, for things like not following the requirements. The builders all know this. The village staff have enforced it many times.

Updated: Staff has confirmed that when the permit was issued, no bonding fee was required by the village. What can rightly be considered a huge loophole in the planning and enforcement process, has since been closed by staff.

Take a look at a blow-up from the plans filed with the village. This is a trail of the changes made. You see four changes are made for permit purposes; this probably where he asked for permission and it was granted. The last (top) three changes don't appear to be made to meet the requirements of a revised building permit; they were done later. These are probably the changes for which council forgiveness will be granted in January 2008.

The trend for enforcement of future projects? Builder Michael Prince knew those changes needed approval but took a pass. He told staff to take him to council and they'd get it straightened out. Council sure did; they let Michael Prince completely off the hook no matter which way you cut it; council even went on public record agreeing they were letting him off the hook, both at the January 8th workshop meeting and at the January 15th Council meeting where they approved it unanimously 6-0 (Schnell was absent).

The trend for clarity in enforcement of requirements? This doesn't straighten anything out; this twists it up in new and innovative ways. Now, any builder who does what he pleases, now he can cry foul if he's ever fined or brought to account for not following the rules. A precedent has been set. The requirements now have an asterisk by them*.

A trend for consistency with all builders and with neighboring municipalities? Some other builders I spoke with (none wanted to be on record) were miffed. They paid fines here and there over the years; it's part and parcel of building. Hinsdale's tough; village inspectors watch you like a hawk just waiting for you to do something not exactly in the approved plans. Naperville's tough too: they just don't care why you can't quite do what you said; too bad, it's fine time. Oh, and all those insubstantial changes? Change everything back to reflect the plan that was approved. Or else. Joliet is typical of many communities. Like Downers Grove they work very closely with the builder so everyone is dialed in before construction starts; from then on it has to be exactly as the approved plans show or they must get permission for changes. Want to keep building in Joliet? Follow the rules.

In one sense, building is a race against time to finish/sell a project before construction loans and costs eat you up. Materials get more expensive every month you delay, any corners that can be cut to save a buck, a nickel; all are weighed. If you're good at it, you make some money, you do more. If you're not, you rarely get to keep going. Even if you're good with one project, it's no guarantee the next won't be your last.

You don't always get it right and then the inspectors write you up and fine you, ding you, and you try and avoid more in the future by playing it by the rules. In return, you get to build in desirable areas where people pay a premium to move and live. Statistics kept by the Village Department of Community Development show a trend; a trend that enforcement and fines work. But council has sent the message loud and clear: no foul, no fines, nothing to see here, move on. The rules changed. What did they change to?

The possible new trend in rules? Say whatever it takes to get the project past the Plan Commission and get it approved by council, and then build it how you want, as long as it's close. If it poses no health or safety problems and is in code, council will approve it; council said they would approve it. Said my friend Bob the Builder, "Over there, they're tough and consistent. Over here, now somebody else got a break we didn't. What about us? We've built here, and paid fines here, and try and follow rules here. When do we get our free pass? Do we get one from now on?"

Actions speak louder than words. Rather than say to builders that builder expectations for variances and exceptions should be severely lowered, council has, by it's actions, trended towards publicly lowering the village expectations of builders. Builders will be happy to oblige and meet this new trend, these lowered expectations, and even test that new bottom, all in the quest to build a bit cheaper. Does council want that trend to continue? I have to say of course not. There's just that problem that they have taken deliberated, and deliberate, steps to do just that.

This trending is not a trend towards sound, consistent public policy.


*Rules need not apply. See your local village council for details.

The New Ethics Ordinance

The actual ethics part of the proposed ethics ordinance is a solid interpretation of ethics language supported by the Illinois Attorney General and the Illinois Municipal League. There does not appear to be any trap doors or hidden problems here, albeit it is still missing the Ethics Committee or Commission.

We still need an Ethics Commission.