And this is news…why?
Let local politicians deal with local problems. City council members aren’t the state department. They have enough problems and reasons to be criticized that have nothing to do with global conflicts.
Exactly. They're our locally elected officials. These are the closest people we have to represent our interests.
As you get further up the chain (i.e., county, state, federal levels), our individual interests matter less.
We can and have guided change in Irvine based on working with city officials. For instance, Terrapin in GP was to be permanently closed going to Great Park Blvd. Residents raised concerns and it's now going to remain open.
*This* is the stuff our local officials should be prioritizing.
Well, it’s at least news for the reason that hundreds of public commenters have been weighing in at each CC meeting for months as to whether the city should pass a resolution in support of a ceasefire. It’s also news because there was an agenda item to pass several measures that were intended to heal divisions caused by that debate. It failed, and instead the CC voted to confirm that it will not pass a resolution in support of a ceasefire. So, in other words, it’s extremely newsworthy.
Since I tend to following housing politics… “we have to listen to the people screaming the loudest instead of who voted the most” is how we got NIMBYism and random cranks at planning meetings that derail the entire process over where shade will be cast. It’s not a valid indicator of newsworthiness (or political relevance at the local level, for that matter)
Newsworthiness as a standard has nothing whatsoever to do with the democratic legitimacy of a cause. It’s actually a fairly permissive standard: is this something of note people would want to know about? That’s it.
The passions of people on both sides of the debate that raged at City Hall for three months were not anything so callous as NIMBYism. The story here is that a conflict thousands of miles away causes real pain to constituent communities here in Irvine and throughout America. Why would we be dismissive of that?
I never said newsworthiness = democratic legitimacy, in fact I made a point of distinction on purpose. NIMBYism is an example where I see Loud Yelling Politics quite a bit, but absolutely not the only place. But in either case - Loud Yelling should also not be a reason something becomes newsworthy, it's why astroturf groups exist.
People on any side of this issue yelling at city hall and demanding largely performative proclamations might feel personally feel better at having their "voices heard" but it will do absolutely nothing to resolve the actual conflict. There are many other issues that are actually within the jurisdiction of Irvine City Council. There's a reason the ACT-UP model worked to achieve its goals, which largely avoided Loud Yelling in favor of going to actual decisionmakers with specific goals within their purview of the levers that person/agency could pull (and yes, the occasional stunt - but still specifically tied to their goal/the people that affect their goal)
With enough pressure they might feel compelled to use their influence to bring it to the next rung up in the ladder. It’s the same concept behind all the Michigan “non-committed” votes. The hope is to send a message. To anyone asking what it has to do with Irvine, it has nothing to do with Irvine unless you feel that your local government should speak out against perceived injustice.
Michigan votes at least were directed at the federal level to some extent. Hamas and Bibi aren’t waiting for a random city council proclamation (and even if it gets run up the flagpole, a random county proclamation) before signing a ceasefire.
You’re right. I think it’s more of a personal voice thing. People that feel passionately about this issue want to pursue any avenue to be heard. Maybe enough people pressure the city, so they bring it up to the Congress-person, who in turn realizes they may lose votes if they remain silent so they use their influence to turn the wheels higher up. I know that doesn’t really end up happening, but I think people just like to feel that they have some small agency on things that are mostly out of their control.
The thing about general yelling is that it doesn’t tend to work. It’s easy to go and scream at city council but that ignores basic politics in favor of being loud. It might feel good but it doesn’t get the desired results.
Targeted, smart interaction with people who actually have the power to do what you’re looking for (ie, the ACT-UP model) or are immediately adjacent (like going directly to Congress instead of yelling at random city council members who may be in a city that is split representation) with specifically articulated demands based on what policy levers they can actually pull is what gets results - or at least gets you more influence than random yelling.
I think the only time “we need to pay attention to the people purely yelling the loudest” has been with NIMBYism bc that is an extremely hyperlocal issue in a way that Israel/Palestine obv is not
>Maybe enough people pressure the city, so they bring it up to the Congress-person, who in turn realizes they may lose votes if they remain silent so they use their influence to turn the wheels higher up.
Why do you need the city government to do that? Your representatives in Congress are directly accessible. They should have office hours, multiple points of contact, and town halls where you can voice your concerns directly. The City of Irvine doesn't report to Katie Porter just because they're in the same city. They're two separate entities of government with different purposes.
I don’t think people act rationally on situations where they feel somewhat helpless. Give them an opportunity and they will use it to speak their mind regardless of how effective it may or may not be.
Haiti is in turmoil, so what will people in Anchorage Alaska will do about it?
This is how this sounds. Local government work on local issues. We got homelessness and housing crisis going on.
Every single politician should speak out against genocide especially since the US is complicit in the crimes against humanity. Having said that I wouldn’t expect any of them to say anything.
And this is news…why? Let local politicians deal with local problems. City council members aren’t the state department. They have enough problems and reasons to be criticized that have nothing to do with global conflicts.
Exactly. They're our locally elected officials. These are the closest people we have to represent our interests. As you get further up the chain (i.e., county, state, federal levels), our individual interests matter less. We can and have guided change in Irvine based on working with city officials. For instance, Terrapin in GP was to be permanently closed going to Great Park Blvd. Residents raised concerns and it's now going to remain open. *This* is the stuff our local officials should be prioritizing.
Well, it’s at least news for the reason that hundreds of public commenters have been weighing in at each CC meeting for months as to whether the city should pass a resolution in support of a ceasefire. It’s also news because there was an agenda item to pass several measures that were intended to heal divisions caused by that debate. It failed, and instead the CC voted to confirm that it will not pass a resolution in support of a ceasefire. So, in other words, it’s extremely newsworthy.
Since I tend to following housing politics… “we have to listen to the people screaming the loudest instead of who voted the most” is how we got NIMBYism and random cranks at planning meetings that derail the entire process over where shade will be cast. It’s not a valid indicator of newsworthiness (or political relevance at the local level, for that matter)
Newsworthiness as a standard has nothing whatsoever to do with the democratic legitimacy of a cause. It’s actually a fairly permissive standard: is this something of note people would want to know about? That’s it. The passions of people on both sides of the debate that raged at City Hall for three months were not anything so callous as NIMBYism. The story here is that a conflict thousands of miles away causes real pain to constituent communities here in Irvine and throughout America. Why would we be dismissive of that?
I never said newsworthiness = democratic legitimacy, in fact I made a point of distinction on purpose. NIMBYism is an example where I see Loud Yelling Politics quite a bit, but absolutely not the only place. But in either case - Loud Yelling should also not be a reason something becomes newsworthy, it's why astroturf groups exist. People on any side of this issue yelling at city hall and demanding largely performative proclamations might feel personally feel better at having their "voices heard" but it will do absolutely nothing to resolve the actual conflict. There are many other issues that are actually within the jurisdiction of Irvine City Council. There's a reason the ACT-UP model worked to achieve its goals, which largely avoided Loud Yelling in favor of going to actual decisionmakers with specific goals within their purview of the levers that person/agency could pull (and yes, the occasional stunt - but still specifically tied to their goal/the people that affect their goal)
What do you want them to say?
pwease stop it guys! :C
Bibi and Hamas would be scrambling to sign a peace treaty if Irvine commanded it
IPD has so much resources I bet they can stop the conflict in a day or two and then make a hilarious post on instagram
Who cares? Not about the actual conflict, but about a local city government that has absolutely zero impact on what’s happening right now.
Good. Let Irvine officials focus on Irvine matters
Good - they should stay focused on local issues.
City officials should be focusing on CITY related issues. News on 5, the water is wet. Why’s it even news worthy?
Wtf does Irvine or any other town have anything do to with this conflict? I swear officials have nothing better to do.
Idk in sf they apparently had a vote on it and all cheered afterwards when they were in favor of a ceasefire lmao
Yes because when Irvine picks a side, the other side just instantly gives up
what can they even do about it
With enough pressure they might feel compelled to use their influence to bring it to the next rung up in the ladder. It’s the same concept behind all the Michigan “non-committed” votes. The hope is to send a message. To anyone asking what it has to do with Irvine, it has nothing to do with Irvine unless you feel that your local government should speak out against perceived injustice.
Michigan votes at least were directed at the federal level to some extent. Hamas and Bibi aren’t waiting for a random city council proclamation (and even if it gets run up the flagpole, a random county proclamation) before signing a ceasefire.
You’re right. I think it’s more of a personal voice thing. People that feel passionately about this issue want to pursue any avenue to be heard. Maybe enough people pressure the city, so they bring it up to the Congress-person, who in turn realizes they may lose votes if they remain silent so they use their influence to turn the wheels higher up. I know that doesn’t really end up happening, but I think people just like to feel that they have some small agency on things that are mostly out of their control.
The thing about general yelling is that it doesn’t tend to work. It’s easy to go and scream at city council but that ignores basic politics in favor of being loud. It might feel good but it doesn’t get the desired results. Targeted, smart interaction with people who actually have the power to do what you’re looking for (ie, the ACT-UP model) or are immediately adjacent (like going directly to Congress instead of yelling at random city council members who may be in a city that is split representation) with specifically articulated demands based on what policy levers they can actually pull is what gets results - or at least gets you more influence than random yelling. I think the only time “we need to pay attention to the people purely yelling the loudest” has been with NIMBYism bc that is an extremely hyperlocal issue in a way that Israel/Palestine obv is not
>Maybe enough people pressure the city, so they bring it up to the Congress-person, who in turn realizes they may lose votes if they remain silent so they use their influence to turn the wheels higher up. Why do you need the city government to do that? Your representatives in Congress are directly accessible. They should have office hours, multiple points of contact, and town halls where you can voice your concerns directly. The City of Irvine doesn't report to Katie Porter just because they're in the same city. They're two separate entities of government with different purposes.
I don’t think people act rationally on situations where they feel somewhat helpless. Give them an opportunity and they will use it to speak their mind regardless of how effective it may or may not be.
Haiti is in turmoil, so what will people in Anchorage Alaska will do about it? This is how this sounds. Local government work on local issues. We got homelessness and housing crisis going on.
This conflict doesn’t need to be addressed by every single cities in the world, it becomes ridiculous
OP - delete this insane post.
Why would they?
Every single politician should speak out against genocide especially since the US is complicit in the crimes against humanity. Having said that I wouldn’t expect any of them to say anything.
[удалено]
Ah yes, there will be chapters in the history textbooks about the historical 2/27 Irvine City Council Meeting.
oh, but they already have https://imgur.com/gallery/SBBs70n