Helen
This is not an endorsement letter. You didn’t mention one reason why voters should support your candidate. This is a disingenuous attack on Adam Morrill. You deliberately distorted Adam’s comments at the council forum, you bolded an inflammatory political slogan, and you didn’t bother to offer your solution to homelessness.
Don’t you agree that the city should support the efforts of the County, nonprofit and faith-based groups in helping the less fortunate? That is part of Adam’s approach. That’s a far cry from “criminalizing unhoused people.” Do you believe it is acceptable for people to camp in front of downtown shops? If not, what is your solution, or Gloria’s?
One council member does not make the rules for the city, it takes three. Getting to three begins with the community brainstorming and developing solutions. Adam has offered some ideas; particularly, updating and following a citizen based General Plan. That’s where community wide discussion can take place. What are your ideas? What are Gloria’s ideas?
Have you reached out to Adam to discuss this topic? Given the tone of your letter, I suspect not. Hence, your letter demonstrates a restricted and troubling view of how to build a community. That’s disappointing and reflects poorly upon you and your candidate.
Given your more than a decade of experience, you must have something constructive to offer on this topic. Lead with that. Davis is filled with creative, compassionate, and generous people who are eager to help. Enlisting that energy requires more than just finger wagging.

Dear Ms. Helen Cramer:
My gratitude to you for emphasizing how un-okay Adam Morrill would be in addressing our homeless situation...actually UN-okay in any public office as far as I'm concerned.
Why?
He refers to the houseless people as "violent transients"-- yes, some can be violent and some steal bicycles, etc....but if you walk into a meeting designed to focus on how to help them and you carry this crude opinion in your pocket (you know, that they're to be pushed away for trespassing at the same time public aid should dry up)....violence will soar, our prisons will burst at the seams...and suffering-- in all of us-- will increase. You cannot mistreat another being and not slide deeper into darkness, yourself.
In Austin, every Tuesday for 6 years, I cut the hair of the homeless. A barber is a lot like a bartender--people tell you things. Especially, when you cup their face with both hands (ostensibly to make sure their sideburns--or bangs-- are even) and then you look them in their eyes..... WATCH OUT 'cause your heart is at risk for breaking. (It's a beautiful risk)
PS: Please, we don't need more bullies in public office.
Do I think Mr. Morrill is a bad person? Absolutely not. However, I feel he would benefit from sitting quietly and letting his dark opinions clear away. Everyone has to do this...I do it daily, several times a day because otherwise I'm going to believe everything I think.

My deeply held view is that all humans deserve to live with dignity, and that includes the right to be in stable housing and to receive appropriate services. Sure. Sounds good and indeed compassionate. But with rights comes personal responsibility. Many homeless people are quite capable of behaving responsibly, but they choose not to. We can respect that choice, but there is no reason to support it in any way or make the community pay for the consequences of their choices. The ones that are mentally ill and therefore can't act responsibly are a problem for the community and need therefore to be taken to places where they can receive the treatment they need. The same goes for drug addicts. Infinite and unbridled compassion does little to address, let alone solve the problem. If anything, it perpetuates it.

I just watched "Beyond Homeless-Finding Hope" comparing San Francisco's homeless awfulness with San Antonio's homeless success. Thank you J.J. Surbeck for providing the link--where we can watch for free.. https://www.beyondhomeless.org/documentary/ --- At one point, in the film, something like this is said:
"You can't arrest homelessness;
you can't arrest addiction;
you can't arrest mental illness"
For me, per my understanding of what Morrill is saying---that he supports depending upon the police to control the homeless problem--"this hasn't worked in the past; isn't working now...won't work in the future".
While I feel that stable housing is a critical element of helping the homeless, it cannot stand alone. There needs to be a wrap-around system of medical care, meals, counseling, job training, etc. Please take the time to see the film about the success of San Antonio's Haven for Hope.

Early in the forum he referred to unhoused individuals as “violent transients.”

While Greenwald provided a link to the full context of his other comments, he left out the link to the full context of this comment. Given that I doubt Morrells is Satan in human form, I suspect that what he was saying, since there isn't even a quote - only an interpretation by the article author, is that violent transients are violent transients. Not that all the so-called homeless are violent.

Kunzang Roesler's comments sicken me. The comments colorfully embody the finger-pointing self-righteousness of so-many of the do-gooders of Davis. Those of you doing good, keep doing good, but to those of you also pointing fingers at those of us with a different view of what is effective as 'sliding into darkness' --> that is not a way to keep from slipping deeper into darkness yourselves.

Don Shor's comment in the Vanguard "The cities have limits on what they can enforce" is odd because I just had a conversation with a friend in Winters who said the police there quite effectively keep the homeless out of the downtown business district. He said there are homeless camps in the creek and elsewhere, but they keep out of sight there because Winters doesn't put up with this shit, as does not most towns across the US except those that are the most blue. It's all about attitude and enforcement.

Don Shor once called me 'heartless' towards the homeless. I would say I more align with most of the commenters who don't believe giving free reign for others to shit on basic societal norms is any kind of kindness nor any kind of solution. Example: the rose garden park in the Amtrak station looks like shit, as it has for several years now. The civil pride of Davis for all to see as they pass through on the train, along with the graffiti facing the tracks on the PG&E substation wall, including a prominent display of the word "FUCK". This 100% due to the city giving up and letting trash be dumped by so-called homeless people. Litter: It's not just for breakfast anymore.

Ron O., could you just copy it here? Nextdoor is social media, and I do not participate in social media. In fact, unlike some social media that at least lets you access articles, Nextdoor does not. AND, they know where you live!

I was able to find the referenced video. To clarify, the candidates were asked about their previous encounters with the criminal justice system; not just police encounters.

Gloria's response can be found just after the 50 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctBMttDKYnY&t=1669s

OK, I'll look at the video. I don't even know what you mean by 'referenced video' as I don't have Nextdoor, and I don't know what an 'article' means in this context, do you mean a posting? Also, you mention an 'author'. Who was it that posted this? Sorry for all the questions; I feel being on social media should not be a requirement to be part of society -- especially because social media is the evil spawn of Satan.

Seems to me this whole campaign has gotten weirdly ugly for a district council race. Twisting one candidates words to make it look like they set homeless people on fire for kicks, oppositewise bringing up some legal issues with the other candidate from twenty-plus years ago; over decades I believe we can allow for forgiveness and change in people.

The good news is by the time the voting is concluded, I'm sure we'll learn which candidate eats newborn babies for breakfast. Maybe they both do :-|

To clarify, others have stated that it's a requirement to disclose it (e.g., if it's a felony) when running for council. And that the crime itself does not disqualify someone.

It is unclear in this case if Gloria was required to disclose it (or if she did so, if required).

I suspect (but don't know) that Gloria did adhere to the law regarding that. I doubt that she would take that kind of risk just to be on the council. (I would hope not, as it's not worth it.)

I'm mystified as to why so many people want to have coffee with me.

One of these days, far too busy for a spell here. Much impressed that you did not attack me, but instead offered to talk. You got my attention.

Odd what you wrote here seems to be more in line with what I believe, whereas what you wrote yesterday I took as what I believe sounds good but does not work. So I retract my stomach statement. Remind me again in early 2023 and perhaps I will take you up on the meeting for tea.

And I'll watch the vid.

> Dear Alan, My new friend to be :))

Well, this has taken an odd turn. Can we just keep it to Tea in '23 before a declaration of friendship? I have mightily more friends than I know what to do with already. It'll take a mighty strong resume and interview to get past tea.

> Ok, gonna get back to you early 2023 as you suggest.

2023, 2024, somewhere in there. Maybe even Christmas Day 2022. I'm Jewish so it's a good day for Chinese food. And tea.

> If I don't, I'm on Facebook, just message me & then we can make a plan :))

Social media is the spawn of Satan. So you won't see me venture that far past the gates of Hell.

> So glad your stomach is ok.

Well, you seem to again be promoting solutions I don't believe are a good idea. Actually I'm not even of the belief there are solutions for most, unless the rare mystery of why a smal handful will reach out for themselves takes place - for them solutions should well be available. The issue is most don't, most never will, and that is hard for the public most to accept so they blame people who point this tragic fact out. Reality is not negotiable.

> I think everyone wants to have tea 'cause you seem like an open, intelligent person--

Hmmm . . . David Greenwald believes I am a man in his 50's or 60's who criticizes the journalistic work of women barely in their 20's (when I am actually complimenting them). Riddle me that one.

Me, I prefer to think of myself as an asshole. But open and intelligent works too.

> who sincerely wants to help Davis on many levels--

I created Davis in my own image. Who ruined it?

> rather than simply complain

I complain difficultly, while most people keep it simple.

> (which is easy for all of us to fall into--whew! is it ever!)

Complaining well is an art form. Few are masters.

> All the best.

Beats the alternative.

> PS: I just knew we had more in common than not === thanks for verifying.

We'll see,
At tea,
In '23
If I can stand you
And you can stand me

And I'll report on this chance encounter as an article in the Davis Vanguard . . .

. . . or on Al's Corner. Whichever one didn't ban me.

It'll be the talk of the town. The City Council might have to agendize it.