Only in bizarro world …

I think you know as well as anyone else that it is the way that you posed the question that is questionable here. You asked:

…didn’t someone ask you on a different blog about your role in re-defining the LOS levels for traffic in Alameda?…

I wonder how many of the other Transportation Commissioners you have asked that question in such a manner in addition to JKW. That question you asked is an entirely different one if you were actually interested in why the LOS levels were redefined, if they really were. If you did have an interest in the issue you would pull out the policy statement from the EIR and ask questions as to why the decision was made to do whatever was done. Rather you asked what role JKW had in crafting the policy and so I would throw back to you, what would it matter what role he had, if he had any, if there was a reasonable explanation for the decision.

As to the main post above, personally I found the topic meaningful because of the lack of action on the part of Action Alameda and friends to run a candidate against Marie Gilmore considering that the weeks leading up to the filing deadline they have been blaming her for every problem in the City possible (ignoring the fact that Doug deHaan made the exact same votes on the same issues) but without a tangible outcome or candidate to support.

In order to get differing viewpoints on island affairs, I read various Alameda blogs and papers from time to time (this, the AJ, the AS, Don Roberts’ and Lauren Do’s blogs), and I find that the sour tone of your contributions, regardless of the issue or forum, leave me feeling a little depressed about the state of public discourse. You might be more persuasive in making your case (if that is really what you’re trying to do) if you managed to appear less bitter. E.g., “destroys whatever trust anyone might have in you.” Come on; isn’t that a little rhetorically overblown? I’m presumably covered by “anyone” and I didn’t have that reaction, and I don’t think that necessarily because I don’t share your point of view on this particular issue. Anyway, just what I leaned when I was a young debate-team member…

I am assuming that whatever David Kirwin was talking about is somewhere in this document. If there is a section or portion that is of concern, then by all means reveal it. But to anticipate that a volunteer commissioner bend over backward over a nebulous statement made without providing evidence attributing the statement and goal to him/her is really quite presumptous.

Of course I can find out about the LOS levels. In the least, I’ll ask David Kirwin—he seems to be on top of these things. I can also predict with fair amount of certainty that anything he states you would come out after with great indignation and a pile of numbers that may or may not pencil out. Why don’t you just say upfront what it is people shouldn’t be asking about?

didn’t someone ask you on a different blog about your role in re-defining the LOS levels for traffic in Alameda?

They sure did! And the question was answered at midnight last night. it was also covered in a much longer discussion on Lauren’s site with the same inquisitor, so I don’t see that re-responding is either necessary or a good use of my time.