Talk:Neighbors Opposed to the Neighborhood “Expectations Statement”
From KpcaWiki
Yeah, I agree with the opposition - we should remind folks about what it means to be a good neighbor but the social stuff is over the top. Mow your lawn, clean your gutters, keep cars off the yard - good stuff and real problems but the rest . . . well, if folks (adults) don't know it now, they are not going to get it from a stuffy statement by the civic association.
Is this a real news article? There is no byline in this submission and it appears to only create destructive mischief by embarrassing and demeaning the work of the Board. Submitting this just looks like work of one who had to win every point. This article made some of the interviewed residents sound arrogant, presumptuous, and, quite frankly, snobby. This article did nothing to push the issue forward but detracted from it.
The quotes are real but in a neighborhood that preaches inclusion and embraces diversity (which includes ideas) be forewarned: The generous nature stops the minute you disagree . . . neighbors are naturally cautious to avoid controversy or risk the threat of legal action by the KPCA board (NO JOKE) or be asked to leave the neighborhood. It's worth a pause to ask: "who is being played." Do you really think this business is about us as a neighborhood and not more about political posturing? This expectations statement is not for us. There are other versions that might work but not this one. -- Marcus 08:50, 1 March 2008 (MST)
I believe that folks from other cultures are interested in what is expected. They have voiced their opinion to me that it would be nice to know all the ins and outs. If you did not grow up in an urban environment, then life in Kings Park would be different. I agree that the phony news article is in bad taste. Where was this guy when the committees were working and developing a position and "Expectations Statement".
Agreed!!
Regarding "other cultures," ask yourself, who in this "other culture" has participated in drafting any of this? There has not been one non-English speaker involved in the entire revitalization program and more specifically, nobody from "other cultures" participated in the working group. --Marcus 09:56, 1 March 2008 (MST)
If "this guy" is Marcus, then I can tell you I wasn't invited to participate in developing the expectations statement. I volunteered to be a member of the working group. No call back. I offered amendments during the exec board meeting and participated in the discussion. Heck, I was meeting secretary. But the fact remains, under this board's leadership, you are never invited to participate in KPCA activities if you don’t toe-the-line. This does not suggest that those who "toe-the-line" are yes-people. It simply means you have been pre-determined to agree with much of the agenda. It is a "my way or the highway" board right now and if you are pre-determined to have a diversity of views, you will not be invited to participate. That, my friends, is winning points at any cost. --Marcus 09:40, 1 March 2008 (MST)
I have agreed with much of what we’ve done over the past couple of years but the minute I have a disagreement, the hammers fall like seen in the above comments. The only way this neighborhood gets a real chance at debate and a diversity of ideas is at the general meetings. I hope everyone will be there in April to see how true this is. -- Marcus 09:03, 1 March 2008 (MST)
Beginning of this posting------If I read this posted wiki article as a bona fide news article with the reporter’s byline and published by a reputable news media, then I would lend more credence to those quotes than what can be published in “wiki” pages no matter what is claimed by the submitter.
There is supposed to be “wiki-etiquette” when posting on wiki pages. Posted level-headed comments/statements/arguments are the norm in effective wiki pages but it is destructive to the discussion when pseudo news articles, sarcastic comments, and underlying threat of legal actions are used as arguments to make a point---we should be aware of fallacious arguments like that. We should try to be pushing the issues forward with level-headed postings.
Dear Anonymous poster: The threat of legal action against me and my family by the KPCA leadership is real and documented. Does Wiki-etiquette suggest I post the proof?) Other neighbors are naturally leery, and apparently so are other anonymous contributors, thus the nameless posts. I would think Wiki-etiquette trained individuals would know to sign their statements . . . but naturally, for reasons I certainly understand, we don't see much of that. Yes, I have my opinions - none of them are personal - just policy. To suggest they are personal is a debate tactic you are welcome to use but it is not factual. If people cannot separate personal issues from policy issues they are taking all of this too seriously. We are a civic association. Let's not get too carried away Senators. --Marcus 10:39, 1 March 2008 (MST)
Readers to this wiki posting (Neighbors Opposed to the Neighborhood “Expectations Statement”) should be aware of people’s personal agendas and not let this be divisive to the KPCA and Kings Park relationships (PTAs, parliament pool, Boys Scouts, Girls Scouts, area youth clubs, etc.). We should read the Neighborhood Expectations Statement ourselves and make up our minds ourselves despite any separate calls to join this group or that group. ------end of this posting.
Dear Anonymous poster: And what personal agenda would you be speaking of? To suggest there is a personal agenda is quite hypocritical of you as by doing so, you are in fact making it a personal matter - it is not. How in the world could it be? Divisive? So, this is where the name-calling begins. Well, if you think people who disagree are divisive - OK. What a great country we would have if everyone just agreed. Were the Founding Fathers divisive? Was the United States divisive during the Cold War? Closer to home . . . for most of us, who do not agree with our property assessments,are we divisive? I guess so. Anyway, the challenge to you, Anonymous poster: what personal agenda? Please Note: my post is signed. -- Marcus 10:39, 1 March 2008 (MST)
Dear Wiki Master: I believe personal attacks are not permitted on wiki pages, just comments on comments. I believe you have removed a statement from a previous poster that was a personal attack (something about "this guy had it in for the President"). Please note personal attack immediately above and take appropriate actions. See Wiki-etiquette.
"This guy" doesn't have it in for the president. "This guy" is the one who brought the preseidnet into the KPCA, asked the president to run, had the president to his house for Christmas and finds the president to be smart, capable and innovative. - -Marcus 13:17, 1 March 2008 (MST)
Comment by John C. Cook, KPCA President
NEIGHBORS: Well, this is an interesting entrance to the "wiki" world, which is a bit new for me. (I don't even know if I'm posting this correctly.) I would hope we could have a discussion that would stay on the merits. For the record, this is my first post, and if I post anything I will include my full name. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions and entitled to express them. Let's try to do it in an appropriate way. The draft Neigbhorhood Expectations statement began with a working group of myself, Ken Malmberg, Lucy Daris, Carlos Farfan, and Joe Camacho. We went through several drafts. We circulated a draft to all 36 neighborhood college graduates. For the record, several of this group are foreign-born, and represent a cross section of our population in many ways, not only race and national origin but also age, profession, and length of time living in Kings Park. Their comments were incorporated. Then a new draft was debated among our executive group (board of directors plus committee chairs). Mr. Dunn submitted many written thoughts and discussed his position fully in our exec meeting. Everyone on the Exec Group had the opportunity to participate, and in the end the current draft passed by an 11-2 vote. I'm sure the draft will continue to improve as neighbors submit their constructive ideas. John C. Cook, President, KPCA.
Mr. Cook presents the situation correctly; this is an ongoing debate. We had a similar situation last Fall when the Revitalization Plan was debated. In that instance, the draft plan was shown to countless people and was passed overwhelmingly by the board. But during the full neighborhood meeting, a majority of neighbors disagreed with the board and made changes. That's how it goes. Fine, 100 people have seen the Expectations Statement, think it's great and vote AYE. But if 101 show up to vote NO, then that's the way it goes. Either way, I'm good and not planning to move. Myself and others have different views. We reserve the right to express those views and appreciate the Wiki. --Marcus 16:21, 1 March 2008 (MST)
