Disabuse yourself of the idea that you’ve thought this through.

Just because you haven’t thought something through does not mean that no one else has.

Evan Tuchinsky is a welcome addition to the Chico ER crew.  One thing I like about him is his humility and openness to alternative views, even when those views differ from his own. That’s a nice change in a local reporter and columnist.

His column today makes use of an eloquent English phrase “Disabuse yourself…”  It means to persuade someone that an idea or belief is mistaken.  So here I am, attempting to disabuse Evan of his mistaken takes on Measure L and the Community Fridge. https://www.chicoer.com/2023/03/17/memo-please-disabuse-yourself-of-the-notion-city-insider/

Measure L was originally called the Quality-of-Life Act, but through machinations of the political process, characterized mostly by hidden motives and cryptic discussions and debates, it became all about public nuisance on public land.  That was by design, orchestrated by those who wanted to kill it outright but lacked the political courage to come right out and say so. The intent of the sponsor, Kasey Reynolds, was clear from the beginning, and her battle for a simple idea resulted in something almost unrecognizable.

To illustrate this, imagine yourself as being opposed to something that had popular political support, so you wanted to kill it without looking like you killed it.  What would you do?  You would do exactly what was done from May, when the idea was first introduced, until August, when the ballot measure was completed.  This kind of clandestine political manipulation is evident from the public record, has continued long after the election, and is still ongoing, evidenced by the Internal Affairs drama over the committee creation.  This type of “government by clandestine action,” also so prominent in the Warren case and settlement, is something the Quality-of-Life Commission was designed to address, which explains why proponents of complete and unchallenged council authority wanted it killed. 

Evan makes two key points, both of which I wish to disabuse him of.  First, that the ballot measure didn’t say anything about a “Quality of Life” committee, so why should we have one?  The reason is clear if you know anything about what took place between May and August of last year.  Some council members don’t believe in committees or commissions or any other forum that takes place outside the Council Chambers during regular meetings.  

As Sean Morgan once famously said on the subject,

“If we need a commission to tell us what quality of life is, we shouldn’t be up here.”

His clear intention was to claim that he didn’t need any help, but he does offer an alternative conclusion that some might endorse. 

For him, supported by our two newest council members, Tom Van Overbeek, and Addison Winslow who have now officially joined the cause, input and discussion should be limited to the bare minimums required by the Brown Act. The council gets all it needs from the public in the 3 minutes they are permitted to speak from the podium, and even that is more than it needs.

The entire point of the Quality-of-Life Act as it was initially conceived and proposed was to create an opening in local governance that increased public access. For those who believe less is better, that is a terrible idea.  That idea was to create a council-sponsored forum for developing ideas, projects, proposals, and actions that serve to reverse the direction of our declining quality of life here in Chico. That was the central idea all along, and explains why it was opposed even by our political “allies.”

The purposeful removal of that key feature from the ballot measure itself is now being used as justification for dropping the whole idea of a public forum.  But the Council did issue a minute order to create such a committee, offered in compromise to keep the commission element out of the ballot measure.  If they really want to kill the idea at this late stage, they are going to be forced to do it publicly.

Now, the argument against the committee is based on the fact it was not in the measure approved by voters.  That is a circular non-sequitur that is rivaled only by the man who murdered his parents, then begs for mercy because he is an orphan. The council majority removed it from the measure, and now uses that fact as justification for killing the committee idea entirely.

The second point Evan makes is the vagueness of Qualify of Life because those words might mean different things to different people.  That is partially true.  Safety, for example, might be defined differently by different individuals at different times. Yet we can all look at something dangerous, a hazardous road, a damaged building, or reckless behavior, and agree those things are unsafe.  Removing a dangerous situation is an improvement in our quality of life.  This is not a difficult concept to grasp.  All positives are illuminated by their negatives and that is true for safe/dangerous, clean/dirty, beautiful/ugly, and prosperous/poor.

This is not rocket science, or beyond our capacity for comprehension. We can and should devote some time and resources to discussing how we might improve our lives in direct and tangible ways.  There are plenty of people who have devoted considerable thought and effort to this idea.  If you are not one of them, then disabuse yourself of the idea that just because you haven’t thought something through does not mean that no one else has.

This brings me to the Community Fridge issue.  Context is everything, and one of the favorite rhetorical tricks of “disabusers” is to falsely frame an issue so as to avoid the main point.  The community fridge issue has been framed as the city’s unwillingness to waive a fee, as if the only issue at hand is whether volunteers should have to pay a fee to provide “mutual aid” in the form of free food.

This misses the point entirely. Even if the fee was waived, a permit would still require that any food distribution program meet the minimum health and safety requirements established by state law.  An open pantry where people randomly leave and take food with no controls, inspections, certifications for safe food preparation, tampering controls, etc., places consumers of food at risk and obstructs the accountability that all food services assume when they distribute food.

If someone gets sick from tainted food, we must know whom to hold accountable so the problems can be addressed. When no one is responsible, then no one is accountable. That is why health standards and certifications exist.  No one can offer food to the public that does not come from a certified commercial kitchen.  That is a state law that exists for the protection of consumers against potential harm. 

Homeless people are entitled to the same protections as the rest of us, despite the good intentions of the volunteers offering free food.  Simply waiving a fee does not make this fundamental safety issue evaporate.

I might normally just call BS, but Evan has given me a more polite way to express that sentiment. So I say, disabuse yourself of the idea that a shallow analysis lacking context is an opinion worth writing home about, even if your writing skills are excellent.