Book:  the cluetrain manifesto

Invited:  One and all.

I can't make it, does that mean I'm not cool?:  Only sort've.  As it's another excuse to sit around and drink beer (or get it spilled on you), you'll probably miss out on some major coolness vibes.  However, as OlyBlog is real world Olympia community brought closer by ones and zeros, we realized that the OlyBlog book club should break out of the traditional physical confines of space and time and allow for ongoing dialogue online.  Rick created the virtual presence, here.

How much is the book?:  If you have internet access and can tolerate reading online, this book is free.  Just click the hyperlink of the book's title and you'll be taken there.  Otherwise, the Library does have a copy, local bookstores can probably order one for you, or our very own Unabonger was kind enough to provide a purchasing link.

Small Pieces, Loosely Joined

What are your thoughts, OlyBlog netizen? 

Storytelling is alive and well. This same evening, throughout the world, storytelling groups like ours have organized events just like this one -- all celebrating the art and tradition of storytelling."

Strangers Have the Best Candy

The Little Sissy Who Snitched

Some Kittens Can Fly!

Kathy Was SO Bad Her Mom Stopped Loving Her

The Attention Deficit Disorder Association's Book of Wild Animals of North Amer-HEY Let's go Ride our Bikes!!

The Kid's Guide to HitchHiking

You are Different and That's Bad

Dad's New Wife Timothy

POP! Goes the Hamster... and Other Great Microwave Games

Curious George and the High Voltage Fence

The Boy Who Died from Eating All His Vegetables

Things Rich Kids Have, But You Never Will

The Care Bears Maul Some Campers and Are Shot Dead

How to Become a Dominant Military Power in Your Elementary School

Controlling the Playground: Respect Through Fear

What is That Dog Doing To That Other Dog?

Why Can't Mr. Fork and Ms. Electric Outlet Be Friends?

Bi-Curious George

Daddy Drinks Because You Cry

Testing Homemade Parachutes Using Only Your Household Pets

The Hardy Boys, the Barbie Twins, and the Vice Squad

Babar Meets Taxidermist

Start a Real-Estate Empire With the Change From Your Mom's Purse

The Pop-up Book of Human Anatomy

You Were an Accident

Getting More Chocolate on Your Face

Where Would You Like to Be Buried?

All Dogs Go To Hell

When Mommy and Daddy Don't Know the Answer, They Say God Did It

Garfield Gets Feline Lukemia

Update: Joel asked me to note that he isn't able to read the blog, so he is not aware of the comments that are happening on this thread.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick McKinnon [mailto:mckinnon.rick@comcast.net]
Sent: Thu 11/16/2006 3:16 PM
To: Joe Hyer
Subject: Restrictions on public space

Council Member Hyer,

As a concerned citizen, I'd like to express my strong opposition to the proposed city ordinance that would place additional restrictions on the use of public space in downtown Olympia. We are presently in a period of history when many of our freedoms have been eroded by concerns that are largely unjustified. The present proposal before the council fits this pattern perfectly. Olympia is a safe and prosperous town, and therefore is not in need of further laws that determine how and where people assemble. I urge you not to support this proposal.

Sincerely

Rick McKinnon

------ Original message --------
From: "Joe Hyer"

Mr. McKinnon -

Thanks for writing in. I am also concerned with restrictions on use of space, be it public or private space. The government necessarily restricts the use of public spaces, be they parks, airports, sidewalks, plazas, etc - for a variety of reasons. I like to see it done as little as possible - as much as necessary.

That is a fine line to walk, and a balance must be struck. So WHY would we restrict the use of public space? Hazards and life safety issues seem reasonable, to an extent. Preservation of common resources, I think, is reasonable (over-camping our national parks, meadow destruction of wilderness areas - while I hate rules, we have to preserve these areas for all). Providing for specific uses, at times seems reasonable. Bike Lanes are for bikes. Roads are for cars. Trails are for hikers. Day use parks aren't for camping. All these have reasons, and seem to be reasonable restrictions on use of the pbulic space.

The question then becomes - IS this ordinance update a reasonable restriction, or does it tip the balance too far? I have thought a lot about this in the past two months, as well as long before that, in a more general sense. And in this case, I think we are simply providing equity. If you stand in the middle of a bike lane, you are guilty of pdestrian interference, under the law. If you park your car in the middle of 4th avenue, you are guilty of pedestrian interference.

As a society, we have a long history of maintaining SOME public spaces as throughfares for mobility, be it by foor, bike, motorcycle, car, or covered wagon. In our case, our current ordinance protects thoroughfares for all modes of transportation EXCEPT pedestrians. It seems reaosnable to me to say that a portion of our sidewalks be preserved for pedestrians, to ensure mobility in our downtown.

But even if I have passed the 'reasonability' test on a restriction, I like to apply a second test before seriously considering restrictions. That's the necessity test. Is this action NECESSARY to preserve the public space for its intended use? And 90% of the time, I don't think this is necessary - but that's true of virtually all laws. This summer, however, we did begin to run into problems of folks sitting in groups across the entire wdith of a sidewalk. Even this is not necessarily enough to make me change things --- but on several occasions, when I asked politiely for folks to move so I could pass- well, I was told NO, and not very nicely a couple of times. I have heard anecdotal evidence of other problems, but this is the extent I witnessed. And when I ask politely to use the public space as it was intended, and am refused --- well, that constitutes someone 'taking' the public space for their own use. That's just not fair to the rest of us, who also want to use the public space.

So at this point, I find the update to the ordinance both reasonable and necessary. If I hear compelling evidence to the contrary at the public hearing or in the next week, I will be sure to consider it through these lenses. It is what I would expect from my elected leaders, reasoned and considered decisions, so it is what I endeavor to make.

Thanks again,

Joe

Joe Hyer
Olympia City Councilmember
jhyer@ci.olympia.wa.us
NOTE: All emails to and from city council addresses are potentially subject to public disclosure. The people are watching.

Joe,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I especially appreicate that you outlined the progression in your thinking on the issue, with details about your concerns and how you've addressed them. I have just a couple of comments:

1) I think that you'll find that the people who are downtown the most, and who use of the sidewalks very intensively, do not share your experience of being blocked or impeded. Now, you may have run into someone who was not a particularly nice person, but we can't make laws against being a jerk (unfortunately). Further, because people don't share your experience, they won't see the logic of the update to the ordinance, resulting in the perception that the change in policy is about something other than its ostensive purpose (i.e., empowering the police to harass homeless and teens). In fact, it is my fear that this change may be perceived by the police themselves as license to do just that.

2) Your bias against more laws is a wise one. I'm not sure if you saw yesterday where a student at UCLA who didn't have his university ID was tased three times for not complying quickly enough with campus police. Now, this student may have had a bad reaction to authority, but that happens and it has to be expected. If you impose new laws on use of public space, they will be enforced -- by force. And, as I mentioned, we live in a time when authority and fear are pervasive beyond all reason, and I am very concerned that the City may find itself in a situation, as a result of the opportunity for use of force that this change will afford, where someone has a bad reaction to authority that escalates out of control. Is this risk worth the benefit that no one should have to step around another person once in a great while?

Sincerely,

Rick

Here is a story that gives a glimpse into American culpability for the chaos in Iraq...

U.S. Contractor Fired On Iraqi Vehicles for Sport, Suit Alleges