Oakley: Borlands Rhetoric Becomes Dangerous

As a city council candidate, there is some pretty dangerous rhetoric being thrown out by the Ron Borland campaign that I would like to address this morning with a little common sense. You see, it’s not that the peoples voices are not being heard, it’s that the “Ron Borland crowd” is just not providing many good ideas for what Oakley should become. The city is listening, they are just not implementing poor ideas.

I’ve provided many ideas to the City of Oakley, some were implemented, some were not—it’s a give and take. So when I read Mr. Borland write about city hall as being “royalty” and we are their “servants”, that is code words for a revolution of the wrong kind. This is a similar line of Paul Seger who ran in the last election and received just just 9.4% of the vote in 2010. Voters didn’t fall for the rhetoric then and lets hope they don’t fall for it now.

Borland is suggesting more meetings, economic summits with fancy names which really is a lot of talking with no action. If Mr. Borland was a true leader, he wouldn’t force the city to create these “summits”, he would form them himself and begin to become a force in Oakley and East County.  The truth is, anyone at the city will meet with any resident at anytime. Anytime I’ve had an issue, within a day or so I have my meeting and its discussed.  The city staff makes time for its resident if the resident takes the initiative to work with the city.

I will also go out on a limb and say those at City Hall do make an effort to be fair and weigh pros and cons before a decision is made.

A perfect example is what City Council Candidate Randi Adler did with Parklands. She wanted change for her part of Oakley and her voice was heard. It took a while because of legal issues, but it will be implemented. She proved she can be a leader and get things done while Mr. Borland continues to sit back and attack. This idea of not representing the people is distorted and misguided while its absolutely a flat out a lie.

For example, Mr. Borland likes to bring up the “City Manager Deal” every chance he gets when it was in the agenda, approved in a public setting without any objections and it wasn’t until after the papers butchered and fibbed about the deal that the people spoke up. My question for Mr. Borland is when this was on the agenda, where were you speaking out against this? Where was the self proclaimed “community watchdog” Paul Seger who at that time videotaped each meeting?  Ultimately, at the request of the “people”, it was rescinded.

If the City were “royalty” as Mr. Borland suggests, the council would have never rescinded the deal and continued down their own path. Instead, the City listened to the people, heard the people, and implemented what the people wanted.  I don’t see where or how the city is not listening to the people because it did exactly what the people wanted. The truth is, people like Mr. Borland wanted blood instead of a correction.

Mr. Borland didn’t get what he wanted which was Mr. Montgomery fired, so he accuses the City of not listening to “the people” and now we are stuck with his bogus campaign rhetoric.  Take for instance his latest blog entry, here are some quotes.

“But to attack these issues, we need elected representatives who will serve in the peoples’ interest.”

“We must replace present leaders by electing those with an open ear to the public and a desire to serve their will.”

“Any campaign platform that doesn’t factor the public into decision-making is built on a shaky foundation.”

“People are tired of the “I run this city!” mantra chanted at City Hall as if they were royalty instead of public servants.”

“The “my way or the highway” form of government has to end.”

I am sorry but someone talking like this is someone who I do not want representing me. While he preaches one thing,  the reality is he apparently wants complete decision making power with a seat at the table. He has proven that with his rhetoric.  If its not his way, we are stuck with rhetoric along the lines of the peoples voice are being silenced. Its dangerous rhetoric to say the least. People are smarter than he is giving them credit for.

Lets just say for example he gets his economic summit created. The people meet and have a discussion. Then what? Should what this group of people decide be implemented? Or is it advice? If the advice is ignored, is the City going to still be accused of “ignoring the people”?  More to the point, how do we know the people participating in this summit are qualified to direct a city? Who gets to participate? Will people be excluded if they don’t agree with Mr. Borland?

The bottom line, these types of groups offer advice, nothing more!

Borland can go create this group at anytime  he wants, he doesn’t need the city or city resources to make it happen. At the end of the day, 1 group or 10 groups, the Council still has the ultimate say on what advice is taken and what is not. Unfortunately, some do not grasp the concept that all advice is not always good advice or in the best interest of the ovrall community–sometimes advice is just self serving to a select few.

I would suggest Mr. Borland stop attacking the city and take some responsibility for his own inactivity.  A true leader would find a way to be heard using facts instead of using phony rhetoric.