Is The Press Democrat Attempting to Manipulate Local Elections?

For over two months Petaluma's Planning Commission and City Council have held a total of four meetings addressing a proposed shopping center project near Highway 101's Washington St. overpass.  During that time the Press Democrat and its local affiliates -- including Petaluma's Argus-Courier -- have published at least 17 articles. 

This extensive coverage has revealed what a January 8th staff editorial called "needless delays" which "carry a big price tag," noting... 

"...the council majority is unnecessarily delaying a decision while ignoring the wealth of information showing the Regency project will provide millions of dollars in desperately needed property and sales tax revenues along with hundreds of new jobs for unemployed residents." 

Suggesting neither Mayor Torliatt nor "her three 'progressive' sidekicks on the council showed any inclination whatsoever to approve [the project]," a January 21st column portrayed them "picking apart an issue that has been on the table for about five years" by imposing "Draconian conditions" on the project.  Describing a developer who "has put up with the council's wavering and stalling for years," the columnist informs us that the developer "finally had enough, and filed their lawsuit," causing the columnist to predict...

"The news that the proposed Regency shopping center is suing the city shook things up in this old town last week, and may well influence this year's political sideshow known as the annual elections."

Portraying "Petaluma and other cities" going down a "path of obstruction," and the project's developer as "so frustrated" with "the delays that it recently filed a suit against the city," a January 25th commentary predicts the city's officials and... 

"...most unfortunately, more of their residents, will awake one day to an economy where there are fewer and fewer jobs anywhere — public or private — for anyone at any wage." 

The same author followed with a January 29th commentary repeating a claim that, while the developer has been "working" to get the project approved for six years, the "slow-growth majority" has again "delayed approval of the project environmental review," the commentary laments... 

"Unfortunately for Sonoma County, the Petaluma story is all too familiar, whether it is demand after demand being placed on developers of the SMART project near Railroad Square, the stalling of a gay retirement community at Fountaingrove or loss of a Wal-Mart for Santa Rosa’s struggling Roseland neighborhood."

Alluding to the recent Massachusetts Senatorial election during which the usually Democratic state elected the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, the commentary warns "the region’s political leaders who have not gotten the jobs-economy message": 

"A Scott Brown moment is likely to be in your future."

A Complicated History Raising Complicated Concerns

What the Press Democrat's and its affiliates' commentaries neglect are a complicated six year project history which has been filled with multiple delays plausibly caused by a lengthy list of factors worth investigating: 

1) The county's limited water resources complicated the city's ability to accommodate for the additional 13 million annual gallons needed for the project. 

2) The city's water needs were being analyzed as part of a new General Plan that got delayed by concerns about its account of Petaluma's water resources. 

3) The city's water needs were being analyzed as part of a General Plan that got delayed when the State announced all new municipal General Plans had to account for climate change. 

4) The developer did not complete its project application until summer 2009. 

5) Because of reasonable questions concerning whether or not the project adequately addresses a number of community goals found in Petaluma's General Plan, dozens of discussions have attempted to improve the project and establish agreeable mitigations. 

6) Because of reasonable questions concerning whether or not the project adequately satisfies the General Plan's specific description of the project's site, dozens of discussions have attempted to improve the project and establish agreeable mitigations. 

7) The recession led to significant cuts in the city's Development Department, impairing the City Manager's ability to address the project's issues. 

8) The project's Environmental Impact Report found three unavoidable significant impacts, creating a legal requirement to sign a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" and raising reasonable questions concerning what considerations would adequately override the project's impacts. 

9) The project's Environmental Impact Report failed to address the project's traffic impact on East D st. and its surrounding neighborhoods, raising questions concerning a) the report's legality and b) whether or not this can be addressed in a way that lessens or minimizes the impact on these neighborhoods. 

10) During the project's history most of the elected officials, the City Manager, the city's Project Planner, and the developer's key negotiators have changed. 

In addition, some community leaders point to Regency, the project's developer, itself.  According to former council member, Matt Maguire, while they "dangle some carrots out there, and make some promises," the developer has "done very little to listen to the community."  In fact, Maguire adds, when dealing with community groups, "they've resisted all the way": 

As a member of one of the community groups that attempted to work with Regency, Ben Boyce insists that the project's delays are, in large part, because the developer has undermined the community's ability to assess the project: 

“The key issue at stake in the Regency/ Target project is the issue of whether the project will be a net benefit for the city of Petaluma, or whether, on balance, it will undermine the quality of life and the economic vitality of the city. A citizen’s group, the Petaluma Community Coalition, which was initiated by members of the PNA (Petaluma Neighborhood Association) and the Living Wage Coalition, worked with the council and staff for nearly two years to put in place a CIR (Community Impact Report), that would adequately address the impacts of the project on the downtown business district, demand on community health services for the uninsured, increase in the need for affordable housing subsidies, and net sales tax increase (as opposed to site specific sales tax revenue). The final version of the CIR was watered down in an ill-fated ‘stakeholder’s committee’ into a document called the FEIA (Fiscal and Economic Impact Assessment) which was cleverly gamed by Regency to be rendered meaningless by the refusal of Target and other prospective tenants to disclose any of the relevant data. The delays on this project are in large part due to the bad-faith manipulations of the project approval process by the applicants. The public wants answers, not glossy PR spin from Regency.”

Whether or not each of these alleged factors contributed to the project's delays, they provide a long list of concerns needing to be addressed in order to understand the complicated issues currently facing the Petaluma City Council as it attempts to determine what's in the community's interest. 

An Ideological Bias Against the Community's Interests?

Only, instead of portraying Petaluma's four recent meetings as the complicated culmination of the project's complicated history, the Press Democrat's and its affiliates' commentaries echo each other's portraits of "needless delays" caused by Petaluma's one year old majority "picking apart an issue that has been on the table for about five years," leading to "demand after demand" by a "slow growth majority" employing "Draconian conditions." 

While commentaries are, by their nature, advocating for a position, the way the Press Democrat's and its affiliates' commentaries do so raises troubling questions about the region's largest news organization.  When understood within the context of 1) the project's long list of likely reasons for its multiple delays, coupled with 2) the persistent community concerns that complicate the public's reasonable preference to shop locally and 3) the philosophical split between a) council members who's public comments have emphasized the project's anticipated economic benefits and b) council members who seem determined to lessen the project's significant environmental impact and improve the project's ability to satisfy the city's General Plan, are the Press Democrat's and its affiliates' commentaries exemplifying an ideological bias against the public's well-being? 

According to Sean Martin, Philosophy Instructor at Santa Rosa Junior College, the Press Democrat's commentaries rely on the types of troubling rhetorical devices about which he warns his Critical Thinking students, including a misleading presumption and use of expertise, a gross oversimplification of complex issues, a distorted use of factual information, and a manipulative reliance on emotionally charged language:  

That these commentaries' rhetorical devices diminish our community discussions on this project's important issues, and seem to be doing so in ways that manufacture a misleading narrative for upcoming local elections, raise questions about whether or not the Press Democrat's editorial department and its affiliates are waging an ideological campaign that negatively impacts our local communities.  But that these commentaries' skewed framing and nearly all of their emotionally charged terms are echoing the Press Democrat's and its affiliates' news articles is raising questions concerning the news institution's integrity.  Stressing that the Press Democrat and the Argus-Courier are one in the same, the Petaluma Neighborhood Association's Paul Francis is convinced that...

The newspaper has deliberately been sidetracking their reporting, hence the dialog surrounding this project is essentially an irrelevant politicization of the issues. Really, what's more important to people? the politics? shopping? Or having a great place to live and raise our children? All the issues being reported on by the Argus have no bearing on the reality of what is presently happening at city hall. The whys? and hows? are completely missing.  This is a big decision and an epic planning issue that the city council and city staff are grappling with-  and now to make matters worse,  a law suit has been piled on top of it! -- Where is local newspapers' reporting on THAT?

Martin stresses that it's important for individuals to recognize when our news narratives employ such rhetoric.  It's often an indication that "there is another side to the story that ought to be investigated.  Or many sides perhaps": 

But, to the degree that the Press Democrat's and its affiliates' rhetorical devices are misleadingly oversimplying important community matters such as development proposals and local elections, Martin proposes that, "they really do damage to the deliberative process that democracies depend on."

Michael Aparicio teaches philosophy at Santa Rosa Junior College.  He's a regular contributor to Empire Report.  "Rojo Reports" is our collection of his news articles.  "The Gadfly" is our collection of his news commentaries.  Taken together, they are Michael's attempt to provide a balance of newsworthy reporting and thought-provoking questioning.  "I'm not a professional journalist," Michael stresses, "I'm someone who considers newsworthy reporting about and for my community important; and, in a world where news professionals seem more interested in sensationalizing overexposed issues, and the news too often focuses on what's announced at staged events, newsworthy reporting about and for my community -- i.e., community journalism -- becomes a form of activism."  Michael welcomes new Facebook friends and using Twitter as a means of sharing information and organizing intelligantly.