4.1) City Council to take action in response to Planning Commissioner John Stein’s comments at the April 20, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting, up to and including his removal from the Planning Commission.
John Stein has served Livermore for over 30 years. His decisions are based on research, listening to all views and asking intelligent questions.
The Council is considering removing him from his position because of objections to language used on April 20th. I believe that his choice of words was misunderstood; his language was not meant to offend.
John Stein deserves to remain on the Planning Commission. He has apologized and the Council has "counseled" him with very harsh language over quite a lengthy period at the April 26th Council meeting. It was very disturbing to watch a City Council publicly lash out at someone, casting him in a negative light, portraying him as someone who he is not.
I request the Council base its decision not solely on personal perception/objection to his language at the April 20th meeting but on his decades of providing Livermore’s citizens with non-biased factual information. I recommend that John Stein remain on the Livermore Planning Commission.
Our city council should be ashamed of their behavior in regard to Mr. Stein. They have “made a man an offender for a word” and “turned aside the just for a thing of naught” to quote Isiah.
I do wish to thank councilor Kiick for at least being uncomfortable with cutting someone off for an offence that is at best unclear. But to answer her other point, I can hardly imagine something more classist than a rush to use power to punish someone for using a single word that only recently went out of fashion with our sanctimonious white aristocracy.
The cities policies require us to act with humility and understanding that people make mistakes. The council has violated these important guidelines far more grievously than Mr. Stein. The council has done far more damage with their actions than could ever be done with a single ill-chosen word.
I formally request an apology. Perhaps you can do better than the one your criticized Mr. Stein for?
I have known John Stein, a dedicated and honorable public servant, for more than 30 years. I have witnessed the personal passion that Mr. Stein has for Livermore community welfare, especially the long-term interests and quiet voices of average citizens. As Councilmember, he often would wade into the audience during recesses to interact with affected parties. His late wife Lynne was widely respected for her many years on the Livermore school board and work for the Livermore Library. Mr. Stein has promoted inclusionary zoning and fair and effective affordable housing policies in the Livermore Valley for many years, long before it became politically fashionable. He carefully makes City planning decisions that are well-informed, fair, and withstand the test of time.
The current City Council would perpetrate a huge injustice if it were to discount and discard the decades of exceptional public service by the Stein family on the basis of an out-of-context comment made during a single meeting.
I have viewed both the Planning Commission meeting of April 20th and the City Council meeting of April 26th relating to the comments of Commissioner Stein.
Commissioner Stein was the only dissenting vote on the Eden Housing Project. While expressing support for affordable housing, he stated his reservations on the lack of sufficient parking and that it could isolate individuals of a given demographic. Since there have been no reference to any of these concerns, we must conclude that they are a reality.
A disproportionate amount of time has been spent, in what some may consider “public bullying”, on the words used to state the concerns, rather dealing with reality of the situation. Focus has been on the messenger instead of the message, giving the impression that unanimity is a requirement for serving on the Planning Commission.
It is the City Council who owes Mr. Stein an apology for making incorrect inferences and portraying him as a person who he not.
I enjoyed listening to John Stein’s excellent questions from 20 April at 3.47 to 4.10 on zoom. But not the ill-conceived / content-free responses.
4.07 Stein “My only concern is parking” After listening to Eden I can see why. Eden’s plan is to use everybody else’s parking, at the expense of downtown residents, shoppers, tourists. This will impact downtown economy, as Stein noted. Stein said things I would have said.
I see NO hint of racial or religious intent in any of Stein’s remarks. I’d guess Stein meant “a ghetto of” as in “a deliberately contained area for”, but not directed at a race or religion, and CORRECTLY implying that a deliberate ghetto of ANY sort is a bad idea. Awkwardly stated but I get what I think he meant. An apology, as Stein already made, for a poorly chosen word, is perhaps fitting since we are so Snowflake today. But that’s enough. The City needs to get back to work. There’s a lot to do on so many fronts. John Stein is a valuable asset in a sea of inexperience.
John Stein has served Livermore for over 30 years. His decisions are based on research, listening to all views and asking intelligent questions.
The Council is considering removing him from his position because of objections to language used on April 20th. I believe that his choice of words was misunderstood; his language was not meant to offend.
John Stein deserves to remain on the Planning Commission. He has apologized and the Council has "counseled" him with very harsh language over quite a lengthy period at the April 26th Council meeting. It was very disturbing to watch a City Council publicly lash out at someone, casting him in a negative light, portraying him as someone who he is not.
I request the Council base its decision not solely on personal perception/objection to his language at the April 20th meeting but on his decades of providing Livermore’s citizens with non-biased factual information. I recommend that John Stein remain on the Livermore Planning Commission.
Our city council should be ashamed of their behavior in regard to Mr. Stein. They have “made a man an offender for a word” and “turned aside the just for a thing of naught” to quote Isiah.
I do wish to thank councilor Kiick for at least being uncomfortable with cutting someone off for an offence that is at best unclear. But to answer her other point, I can hardly imagine something more classist than a rush to use power to punish someone for using a single word that only recently went out of fashion with our sanctimonious white aristocracy.
The cities policies require us to act with humility and understanding that people make mistakes. The council has violated these important guidelines far more grievously than Mr. Stein. The council has done far more damage with their actions than could ever be done with a single ill-chosen word.
I formally request an apology. Perhaps you can do better than the one your criticized Mr. Stein for?
I have known John Stein, a dedicated and honorable public servant, for more than 30 years. I have witnessed the personal passion that Mr. Stein has for Livermore community welfare, especially the long-term interests and quiet voices of average citizens. As Councilmember, he often would wade into the audience during recesses to interact with affected parties. His late wife Lynne was widely respected for her many years on the Livermore school board and work for the Livermore Library. Mr. Stein has promoted inclusionary zoning and fair and effective affordable housing policies in the Livermore Valley for many years, long before it became politically fashionable. He carefully makes City planning decisions that are well-informed, fair, and withstand the test of time.
The current City Council would perpetrate a huge injustice if it were to discount and discard the decades of exceptional public service by the Stein family on the basis of an out-of-context comment made during a single meeting.
I have viewed both the Planning Commission meeting of April 20th and the City Council meeting of April 26th relating to the comments of Commissioner Stein.
Commissioner Stein was the only dissenting vote on the Eden Housing Project. While expressing support for affordable housing, he stated his reservations on the lack of sufficient parking and that it could isolate individuals of a given demographic. Since there have been no reference to any of these concerns, we must conclude that they are a reality.
A disproportionate amount of time has been spent, in what some may consider “public bullying”, on the words used to state the concerns, rather dealing with reality of the situation. Focus has been on the messenger instead of the message, giving the impression that unanimity is a requirement for serving on the Planning Commission.
It is the City Council who owes Mr. Stein an apology for making incorrect inferences and portraying him as a person who he not.
I enjoyed listening to John Stein’s excellent questions from 20 April at 3.47 to 4.10 on zoom. But not the ill-conceived / content-free responses.
4.07 Stein “My only concern is parking” After listening to Eden I can see why. Eden’s plan is to use everybody else’s parking, at the expense of downtown residents, shoppers, tourists. This will impact downtown economy, as Stein noted. Stein said things I would have said.
I see NO hint of racial or religious intent in any of Stein’s remarks. I’d guess Stein meant “a ghetto of” as in “a deliberately contained area for”, but not directed at a race or religion, and CORRECTLY implying that a deliberate ghetto of ANY sort is a bad idea. Awkwardly stated but I get what I think he meant. An apology, as Stein already made, for a poorly chosen word, is perhaps fitting since we are so Snowflake today. But that’s enough. The City needs to get back to work. There’s a lot to do on so many fronts. John Stein is a valuable asset in a sea of inexperience.