Donie Vanitzian dissects California A.B. 1921
Villa Appalling co-author and L.A. Times columnist Donie Vanitzian has a lengthy and very critical analysis of the massive rewrite of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act that was drafted mainly by the California Law Revision Commission.
4 comments:
Thank you, Dr. McKenzie, for posting this Bill and most importantly, Donie Vanitzian's analysis. In my opinion, Donie has always been "right on the money," and hopefully those in CA will take notice. This is a brilliant, knowledgable woman who, among other credits, understands the devastating impact on families who have been victimized and made homeless, by an abusive Board. The selective discrimination and targeting, by many of these groups, needs to be exposed and stopped!
Her analysis is the most detailed I have seen in the press anywhere. The bill isn't getting enough attention, and I hope people read her piece and start getting involved and asking some of the hard questions she lays out. The CLRC has a 90% success rate with the CA legislature, so this is very likely to pass in some form.
Good to see that Mr. Hebert has decided to comment on Ms. Vanitzian’s critique of AB 1921.
As suggested by Mr. Hebert herein ( “Anyone who has questions or comments about the proposed law can send me email (bhebert@clrc.ca.gov) or post them here. I will do my best to respond”), in the recent past, The Cotobuzz Journal has tried on several occasions to have Mr. Hebert respond to criticisms launched against the CLRC and Mr. Hebert. All we have gotten to date from him is “no comment”.
Wondering if Mr. Hebert has decided to change positions?
Perhaps he may want to clarify the term anyone, as in “anyone who has questions”, to avoid a Clintonian “is”, or a Romney “see”
J. L. Buzz Aguirre, The Cotobuzz Journal www.cotobuzz.com
We thank Mr. Hebert for responding directly to our post dated April 8, 2008. His response indicates that we have our facts wrong: “Actually, I think you asked me for comment on two different occasions and I gave you a comment on one of them. So the statement that "all you have gotten" from me is "no comment" is untrue,” Mr. Hebert wrote in his response to our posting.
Since we are calling Mr. Hebert to define what he means by “anyone”, it is indeed fair for Mr. Hebert to ask us what we mean by the “no comment” comment: There is an interesting fallacy in informal logic called the principle of vacuous alternatives, where comments offered have no conversational contribution. Hence our conclusion that the vacuous alternatives offered by Mr. Hebert can be classified as “no comment”
Since Mr. Hebert took the time to respond to our posting, we took the opportunity to thank him and ask him one more question: Mr. Hebert “your reply seems to confirm your message in the McKinsely blog, that you are willing to respond to anyone. If so, critics charge that you have stepped outside the bounds of the CLRC. Can you confirm?” – we have not heard from Mr, Hebert since April 9, 2008.
Post a Comment