Contra Costa Times Columnist Daniel Borenstein once again attacked the great City of Oakley in his latest piece titled “Elected Officials Behavior Often Stranger than Fiction”. He can claim on the record he does not have a dislike for Oakley, however, his actions clearly show otherwise.
The truth is, either Borenstein cannot come up with something more interesting to write about, or he is just an angry person. This is now the third time he has written about Oakley on the Mortgage deal in order to pander to a small crowd in order to keep this non-issue alive.
This is actually getting quite boring Dan—even if you did tweak this piece to be about broadcasting council meeting.
We get it; you hate Oakley and have visions of yourself turning the appearance of Oakley into the Northern California version of Bell. Well it’s not going to happen, not on my watch. I will not let you because I love my hometown!
This obsession Borenstein has for Oakley is actually quite bizarre, almost like he is stalking my town.
He appears to now have the opinion that because of his September piece about the Montgomery mortgage deal, there is now a newfound interest in city government and he is the knight in shining armor and it’s all due to him. Talk about arrogance and being full of oneself! If he wants to appeal to less than 1% of Oakley, be my guest, I’ll appeal to the other 99%.
Borenstein should know better when stating his case that if a live or streaming feed of the council meetings was available, it would prevent such items as the mortgage deal from happening. This logic is irrational, even for him!
Common sense, however, shows that someone watching from home or over the internet will have no effect whatsoever during ongoing council meeting! It’s impossible because they are not in attendance and cannot issue a speaker card. Sure, they can affect the next meeting, but by then it’s too late.
The comparison is illogical and a slippery slope. It’s actually a lazy argument. Let’s take aim at his hit and run summary with Borenstein claiming the following:
(Bryan) Montgomery says the recordings aren’t broadcast quality: They really aren’t broadcast quality because the video is terrible. Borenstein claims the video is adequate. If that is true, I would think he has never actually reviewed the video. The quality is so bad, it makes pathetic look great.
Mayor Jim Frazier keeps talking about cost: Yes, these things are expensive. Would Borenstein prefer money be spent on AV equipment or on public safety? I’ll choose public safety any day of the week. A cheap solution is audio only within 24-hours of the meeting being completed.
By the way, you cannot compare spending money on AV equipment to Montgomery, its two separate issues.
Pat Anderson objects because she wants people to come to City Hall. Apparently, Anderson thinks residents have nothing better to do at 6:30 p.m. on a Tuesday than keep her company: I am sure she would like some company and have people speak up at a meeting considering very few do. Everyone loves some company every now and then.
Take a closer look Borensteins line “Apparently, Anderson thinks residents have nothing better to do at 6:30 p.m. on a Tuesday than keep her company”. Borenstein can now officially be discredited from any piece in the future. He is essentially saying to residence do not attend a council meeting to talk to officials because it is a waste of one’s time and Oakley residence have better things to do.
Dan, you cannot have it both ways when you talk about Oakley politics!
Either meetings are important or they are not! If it’s not important residence come keep Anderson and others company then why all the fuss about Oakley in three columns and argue for an AV system broadcast?
Remember, it’s easy for Borensteen to take a stand on something like that when he does not have the facts right nor does he have any risk involved in presenting false facts. He is encouraging an AV System because he doesn’t have to pay for one—Oakley does! He can take a stance against Oakley because he wants to help sell newspapers as negativity sells!
Borenstein wants to pretend his actions are above elected officials, but his actions are quite the opposite as they are quite bizarre all in the name of newspaper sales.
But let’s look at his history against Oakley in his prior two columns.
October 14 Column: This one had me fooled and I went hard after the council based off his piece. Upon fact checking, I changed my tone as many half-truths were stated in order to get his point across the way he intended—essentially to stir the pot. I believe I even commented on this article requesting resignations. His behavior was dishonest, unethical and full of false propaganda in order to make Oakley look like a bunch of clowns.
November 12 Column: Borenstein seems a bit delusional in this one. The data he claims he uncovered after being hidden from the public is actually available to anyone at any time upon request. All one had to do was go through the paperwork—nothing was hidden!
In three columns, he has now established a history of odd behavior against Oakley.
As stated above, he is now taking credit for the newfound interest in city government. If that is the case, Oakley residence should send him a bill for all the resources wasted for the city. Hit pieces due costs time and money.
Think about that. Staff and council were then stuck answering phone calls, emails, pulling documents while council issued an apology, rescinded the deal, while council meetings wasted time talking about the issue—which was blown out of proportion and full of half-truth statements by Borenstein.
I hate to say it, but people in Oakley were just asleep at the wheel and failed to complain about it before hand as there had been four previous amendments to his contract.
So while Borenstein claims elected officials behavior often stranger than fiction, maybe it’s time he look in the mirror because his behavior is even more bizarre than Politician’s in which we now have a history in writing.
Now while some may claim I am pro-council that is far from the truth. I am pro-Oakley and want what is best for my city and have it not be cast in negative light. Elected officials are not perfect; they do not claim to be. Oakley officials have been open and honest with me even when I ask tough questions—I think they would agree I don’t let them off the hook easily. I am tough, but I am also fair, unlike some!
With that said, I will not let a little weasel who writes a lazy piece like the one published today dictate how others perceive my City.
Rather than write with an opinion in a column, if it means so much to him then I suggest an investigative piece on the City and then we can have an open discussion and honest debate.
Until then, the case can be made we are dealing with a mental patient at the Contra Costa Times.