AI Sentiment Analysis

Comments of the Initiative Ballot Issue 15-234 by the Chairperson of the Committee (Mr. John Williams) in support of the $75,000,000 revolving debt issuance to the City of Ashland. These comments were taken from the social media website NextDoor. Link to Acrobat PDF of this text

For weeks now, this forum has endured a daily barrage of carefully crafted posts designed to manipulate Ashland residents into voting against Measure 15-234. The author, and his 2 or 3 “fanboys” (his word, not mine), utilize a wide variety of time-tested debate strategies to sow every manner of fear and loathing about Ashland’s water infrastructure needs and plans. They cherry-pick data, intentionally omit critical data, insinuate 2nd hand information, and fabricate context as they see fit, always pretending they are experts in the subject and throwing in a healthy dose of anti-government conspiracy theories for good measure. Is this really what today’s political climate has dealt us: people who are unwilling to be a constructive part of the solution, and who instead just lob grenades into civic discourse and plans to halt all progress? Is that really how we want to address real needs in our community? I honestly appreciate those of you who have asked tough questions of these bullies, but we need more. We need people who are willing to fact-check, and push back against people with personal agendas and vendettas, who want to hijack the narrative and burn it all down.

A classic example this week that goes to the heart of our water infrastructure issues comes from this author, who often argues for a dangerous fantasy of “do nothing” in the face of our 75-year old infrastructure:

“The only engineers who evaluated our current WTP concluded that it could be viable for at least 20 more years.”

This is a classic, deliberate lie of omission. The author knowingly cherry-picked this info out of context from a report by 2 engineering firms, but left out the critical context so that he could manipulate his readers. What the engineers actually said in full was, and I quote,

“The report acknowledges that it is feasible to continue the operation of the exiting (sic) plant for the 20-year planning horizon. The report also acknowledges that the risks associated with continuing to operate the plant in the existing location are not risks that can be reasonably mitigated. Due to the findings in the report it is not recommended to utilize the existing plant for the duration of the planning period, it is recommended that the City move towards a replacement facility to mitigate the established risks associated with the exiting location.”

Clearly the engineers in this report said Ashland needs to move towards replacing its WTP with a new plant in a safer location. One way you can help support truth and science, is to attend the Ashland.news community forum on Ashland’s water infrastructure needs tomorrow evening. Flyer enclosed! Thanks.

Clarifications on Ashland Measure 15-234. After the Ashland.news Water forum Wed night, I wanted to clarify a few key issues about this Measure.

1. Does Measure 15-234 raise property taxes? No

2. Does Measure 15-234 raise water utility rates? No

3. Does Measure 15-234 create new taxes? No

4. Does Measure 15-234 authorize a new Water Treatment Plant? No

What Measure 15-234 does do is allow the City to open a line of credit with the federal government for future water infrastructure projects, if the City chooses to do so. This line of credit is called the WIFIA program, and is administered by the EPA solely for municipal water systems. If the City needs to use this line of credit, it will be paid back from the Water Fund, which is funded through water use rates. If the City gets enough grants or other financial instruments that result in lower costs, the City will reduce the amount of money drawn from the WIFIA line. The City’s Water Fund currently has $18.5 million in it, which has been saved up in advance, in anticipation of replacing aging water infrastructure. The City Council may decide to raise water rates in the future, to pay back any financing incurred through water infrastructure expenses. Thanks to Ashland’s Public Works Dept., the City has applied to several promising financing programs that will forgive or grant expenses for water infrastructure.

What will voting No do on Measure 15-234? It simply limits the City’s options and likely makes water infrastructure financing MORE expensive. If this measure passes, the City will not be able to utilize WIFIA federal financing. This is because the WIFIA program is generally considered the cheapest money the City can get, aside from grants and loan forgiveness. If the City can’t access WIFIA and has to finance water infrastructure expenses (as nearly all American cities do) with other financial instruments, it will cost more. The WIFIA program allows the City to use as much or as little as it needs, and pay those funds back over a 35 period at a historically low interest rate.

Please vote YES on Measure 15-234 to give the City the option to utilize cheap, flexible federal financing to safeguard Ashland’s drinking water.

Now that Measure 15-234 has passed in Ashland by a wide margin, I’d like to invite those who opposed the measure to contact me with your constructive ideas on how you believe Ashland should proceed with efforts to secure our water infrastructure. Many people were very vocal in their opposition; now’s the opportunity to sit down and explain those ideas and solutions without all the politically charged rhetoric and pressure of an election. I would like to not only help bring information and discussion to everyone on water infrastructure, but as constructive ideas and questions evolve, I’d like to facilitate bringing them to our water professionals and elected officials.

There was a tremendous amount of misinformation intentionally spread about Measure 15-234 and Ashland’s water infrastructure by some of the measure’s opponents. I will not waste my time with people who spread lies to further their agenda, whatever it may be. But I also know that many people who opposed Measure 15-234 had good ideas, legitimate arguments, great questions, and a sincere desire to see Ashland’s community improved. Those are the people I’d like to talk to. I’ll be reaching out individually to people like George Kramer who fall into that later group, but I want to make an open call to everyone.

Moreover, I firmly believe public discourse is the best way to move large projects and ideas forward. I get it…we didn’t do enough community engagement for water infrastructure before Measure 15-234 was put on the ballot. I should’ve done more to advocate for that. We also have some older ideas from the pre-Covid days that need vetting. But now we have a chance to put the election behind us and continue to move forward. Good, smart people may still disagree on the best path forward even if we share common goals. But we need to talk it out. I invite those who opposed Measure 15-234 to reach out, have a discussion, help find some common ground, and make sure we leave no stone unturned in trying to find the most cost-effective way to safeguard Ashland’s water supply.

think you have a doublespeak definition of “transparency”, since this piece shows actual names of real people, including me, while the opposing group uses a PAC name to hide the names of the supporters. What kind of transparency is that? This was not funded by Alan Bates’ leftover campaign funds, nor is there anything remotely nefarious or inappropriate about this page. Thanks for reposting it though.

Query: The writer’s comments on social media express a mix of frustration, concern, and a call to action regarding Measure 15-234. Here’s a summary of the sentiments: Link to Acrobat PDF of this text

1. Frustration and Criticism: The writer is frustrated with the tactics used by opponents of Measure 15-234, accusing them of cherry-picking data, omitting critical information, and spreading misinformation. They criticize these opponents for not being constructive and instead hindering progress.

2. Clarification and Advocacy: The writer clarifies what Measure 15-234 does and does not do, emphasizing that it does not raise taxes or utility rates but allows the city to open a line of credit for future water infrastructure projects. They advocate for voting “Yes” on the measure to utilize federal financing options.

3. Call for Constructive Dialogue: After the measure passed, the writer invites those who opposed it to engage in constructive discussions about how to proceed with water infrastructure improvements. They express a desire to move past the election rhetoric and work together for the community’s benefit.

4. Defense of Transparency: The writer defends their transparency and criticizes the opposing group for using a PAC name to hide supporters’ identities. They assert that their efforts are not funded by leftover campaign funds and are above board.

Overall, the writer’s sentiments are a blend of frustration with misinformation, a strong advocacy for the measure, and a call for constructive community engagement moving forward.

Query: please provide a summary of the sentiments used by the writer in these comments on social media. These comments concern a municipal debt issuance proposal recently on the ballot. Link to Acrobat PDF of this text

Based on the document, here’s a summary of the writer’s sentiments regarding Measure 15-234 for Ashland’s water infrastructure:

Passionate and Confrontational Tone:

– The writer is highly critical of opponents of Measure 15-234

– Uses strong language to describe those who argued against the measure, calling them “bullies” who spread misinformation

– Accuses opponents of deliberately cherry-picking data, fabricating context, and using fear-mongering tactics

Defensive and Explanatory Approach:

– Provides detailed clarifications about what the measure actually does

– Explicitly states the measure:

– Does not raise property taxes

– Does not raise water utility rates

– Does not create new taxes

– Does not directly authorize a new Water Treatment Plant

Collaborative Post-Election Sentiment:

– After the measure’s passage, the writer shows a surprisingly conciliatory tone

– Invites opponents with constructive ideas to engage in dialogue

– Expresses a desire to:

– Facilitate discussion about water infrastructure

– Bring different perspectives to water professionals and elected officials

– Find common ground

– Acknowledges that not enough community engagement happened before the ballot measure

Underlying Motivation:

– Strongly believes in securing Ashland’s water infrastructure

– Wants to use the most cost-effective federal financing options (WIFIA program)

– Sees public discourse as the best way to move large community projects forward

The overall sentiment is one of passionate advocacy, combined with a post-election willingness to bridge divides and continue collaborative problem-solving.

Query: please provide a summary of the sentiments used by the writer in these comments on social media. These comments concern a municipal debt issuance proposal recently on the ballot. Link to Acrobat PDF of this text

The comments in the document exhibit a range of sentiments, which can be summarized as follows:

1. Frustration and Criticism:

• There is evident frustration with those opposing the measure, particularly targeting their tactics. Opponents are accused of using misinformation, cherry-picking data, and pushing personal agendas or conspiracy theories. Words like “manipulate,” “fabricate,” and “deliberate lie” underscore the negative sentiment toward these actions.

2. Advocacy and Optimism:

• Supporters of Measure 15-234 express strong advocacy for the proposal, focusing on its benefits, such as financial flexibility and safeguarding water infrastructure. Sentiments of hope and determination appear in efforts to clarify misconceptions and encourage constructive discussions.

3. Calls for Constructive Engagement:

• A more conciliatory tone emerges in post-election commentary, inviting opponents to share ideas and collaborate on water infrastructure improvements. While still critical of misinformation, the writer encourages dialogue and stresses the importance of finding common ground for the community’s benefit.

4. Pride and Defensive Stance:

• The writer displays pride in the measure’s passage and defensiveness against accusations of lacking transparency or using dubious funding. The writer rebuts claims by highlighting personal involvement and transparency in advocacy.

In summary, the sentiments range from frustration and critique to advocacy, optimism, and a conciliatory tone aiming to foster community collaboration post-election.