I missed the deleted conversation, but have to agree that editorial standards seem to be slipping at SacPress. Did you guys get rid of your copyeditor?

Thank you for the clarification, moehong. The article does not state that clearly. Some of us don't have the "insider knowledge" apparently. The article is a bit misleading because it doesn't say that just a few restaurants are opposed--it sounded like it was painting all brick and mortar restaurants with the same brush, which I thought was the inaccurate part. Why don't you name the restaurants and the one city council member who you are mentioning? I'm curious about this.

While I'm a supporter of the food trucks, I think it's grossly inaccurate to portray all brick-and-mortar restaurants as "rich" and "established." It's great that the food truck owners have established their own advocacy group and are working toward changes in the current city ordinances. However, this particular issue is not going to sway my vote one way or another. Frankly, City Council has more serious issues to solve, IMO.

Ugh. How about we all stay out of each other's buying and eating habits? When I go to the Co-op, it is to buy groceries, not have anyone's political agenda shoved in my face.

I don't agree that the unions are the root of all evil; however, I am really outraged at the myopia and mismanagement of the utilities department. I am voting yes on "B" as an expression of my frustration and dissatisfaction, not because I actually like the measure. I hope it sends a message to our city leaders that there is definitely a problem that needs to be fixed.

Love the quotes from William Burg--and I completely agree with him.

I haven't tried the Press yet, but I find this review unbalanced. I don't think it is fair to pan the restaurant negatively just to get your headline to jump out. That is, if you had one good experience and one that was not ideal, why place more emphasis on the negative? Seems very amateurish to me.

Will wonders never cease. Finally, a political op-ed on Sac Press that is posted as such, complete with a brief notation about the writer's background. Thank you.

I've taken Tyler's classes in the past, and I'd have to agree. He is a wonderful yoga instructor. I had not heard about this new studio until seeing this article--so, thank you, Suzanne!

I find it difficult to believe that Sacramento did not have several excellent candidates to choose among for this position. I am very, very disappointed to see that, yet again, we've hired someone from outside the area--someone who will take time to get up to speed with the many outstanding volunteer organizations and efforts that are currently going in our region. I would be much more supportive of this position if it were someone who actually had a stake in our community. Truly a shame.

Since you didn't actually address that issue, how would your readers "learn"? It is your opinion that the coequal goals are mutually exclusive, but it doesn't appear that the state legislature shares your opinion. Nor do I. My point is that you've oversimplified and skipped over 30 years of water policy history, which makes your article inaccurate and misleading.

The information in this article, while partially accurate on the history, is woefully dated and lacking in any current information or supportable facts. Currently, two-thirds of the state population relies on water in some form from the Delta--and that means far more people than just "LA". While Sacramento has a generous water right from the rivers, the Delta's water doesn't belong to Sacramento. You seem to be confusing the issues--not certain whether you're being disingenous or if you're just not clear on your geography. Numerous water bonds (addressing levees, ecosystem restoration, water quality, etc.) have been passed since 1982, yet you skip from that year to this with no acknowledgment that anything has happened in between.

To quote Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Well, I'm torn until I hear more. The farmer's market aspect sounds very good. The revitalization of an empty lot in the central city sounds good. The destruction of city landmarks sounds like an incredibly bad idea. And the price tag for taxpayers? A major turnoff for me. I'll be following this issue closely. I noticed that if you look at the plan on their website, the color-coded phases don't include the blue shade--which is the Boqueria. Does that mean it would actually be the last piece built or is an optional part of the plan? Very confusing. Also, please stop capping Words you Think are Important, Mr. Paino. It's annoying.

This strikes me as a pretty typical "upcoming event" article--the type you'll see in the lifestyles section of any newspaper. And I appreciate hearing about events before they happen as opposed to after-the-fact writeups about events I wish I'd known about! I don't object to this sort of article--particularly when the coverage comes from an SP staffer. What I object to (time and time again) are companies posting "stories" attempting to shill themselves/their services and get free advertising.

Thanks, Andy. I recently met him and found him fine, if not incredibly impressive. Maybe he was having a good day. :-)

Wow. I missed that exchange. A perfect example of why it is futile to use logic and facts to counter insanity (ah, but you gotta love Collett and Burg for at least giving it a heckofa try). This is also a perfect example of the libelous comments that I sincerely wish SP would consider deleting. Not to silence some "unpopular" speech, but because such flagrant, unsubtantiated allegations are thrown about with utter irresponsibility. Local businesses and residents should not have to tolerate--or waste their time defending themselves against--these types of specious attacks. And I second (third?) the mashed potatoes rule.

I'd like to know, too...genuinely. I honestly had the impression he was a fairly solid guy. But if there's some rationale behind saying he's mediocre and/or disastrous, I'm all ears. Even though sounds like we're stuck with him now...

I doubt much of what you've written here. Johnson believed he had the support of several council members, some of whom have supported him in the past. If everything you claim is true, why would the council's attitudes toward the mayor change so much that the only support he can get *on this issue* is from Waters? I don't know that any of the concerns raised by the other council members could be considered specious--and perhaps the offhanded way in which their concerns and those of their constituents are dismissed by folks like you contributed to the lack of support. To me, it seemed a lot like a vote of no confidence.

Brilliant, thoughtful commentary, David.