YouTube video of Thursday’s meeting, queued up to the item in question.

Though a permanent solution still eludes commissioners for the time being, at Thursday night’s meeting the Humboldt County Planning Commission made some progress on the question of which of its members should sit where.

The agenda item was brought forward by Commissioner Brian Mitchell following the fiasco of the previous meeting, in which a couple of commissioners were scrunched together too closely on the dais.

Mitchell — who visibly struggled to get his words out during the nine-minute discussion, perhaps due to strong emotion over the topic — proposed seating members according to seniority, with the commission chairperson in the middle and the two longest-serving members of the seven-member commission on his or her left and right and so on down to the edges, where the very newest members would sit.

His proposal received some pushback from Commissioner Mike Newman, who proposed, instead, that the five members of the commission directly appointed by a supervisor sit in the chairs of the supervisor that appointed them, with the two at-large appointments seated on the edges — or “wings,” in Planning Commission parlance. But Newman withdrew after the commission came to the realization that no one knew if the supervisors always sat in the same seats.

After much back and forth, with Chair Alan Bongio and Commissioner Melanie McCavour offering helpful suggestions to make sure Mitchell’s concerns were being addressed, a consensus seemed to form: The commission’s chairperson would sit in the middle, with three members on either side, and care would be taken to ensure that each member got roughly equal space.

Mitchell seemed to be ready to go along with this, but threw a last-minute curveball into the works. He would take it upon himself, he said, to draw up a formal seating chart before the commission’s next meeting, which is currently scheduled for the evening of April 21. At that point, Mitchell said, he will offer up the plan for consideration and critique of the full commission.

At the direction of Chair Bongio, Humboldt County Planning Director John Ford agreed to place the item on the next meeting’s agenda. Stay tuned.

Below: The full transcript of the discussion

TRANSCRIPT

HUMBOLDT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR ALAN BONGIO:

Okay, so now we’ll move on to other business — and this was agendized, I believe, by Commissioner Mitchell — to talk about the Planning Commission seating chart. So I’ll let you…

HUMBOLDT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONER BRIAN MITCHELL:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s been a while since we’ve all met here, and during that time we’ve had members leave the commission, and some come on.

I don’t know the exact protocol before, but it seemed to me that when I was the newest member on the commission I was on the outside, and it sort of … funneled into the chair being in the middle and fanned out from there.

And just also the fact that your station [Ed. note: the staff’s] makes it so that there’s there’s more people crammed in this area then that side. And I just wanted to see if there’s anything we do to address either of those issues.

CHAIR BONGIO:

Okay. Do you have some thoughts on what you think might…

I … this … I’ve been here for about almost 10 years and other than when you’re at the chair, it just was wherever they seated you. I don’t think there’s ever been a official … I just went where the plaque said I was supposed to sit.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONER MELANIE MCCAVOUR:

I think last week was particularly bad in terms of the layout, and I think what happens is because there’s five supervisors and seven commissioners…

COMMISSIONER MITCHELL:

Yeah.

COMMISSIONER MCCAVOUR:

… they tend to get crammed towards that end, and I think maybe if everyone just slid down like we were forced to last time, because it was so obvious …

COMMISSIONER MITCHELL:

Yeah.

COMMISSIONER MCCAVOUR:

… that could help. Which would mean that our chair would be a little bit less in the middle, but I don’t think that’s an issue.

CHAIR BONGIO:

Doesn’t matter to me.

The director… We were talking about this before the meeting — maybe, director, you could give your your thoughts.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR JOHN FORD:

I don’t know that there’s a rhyme or reason for it. There’s a couple different things you could think about. I think that Commissioner Mitchell brought up the idea of the more experienced, longer-tenured planning commissioners sitting towards the middle.

There’s, perhaps, the idea of having the commissioner sit where their supervisor sits, with the at-large appointments, you know, placed in appropriate locations either at the end, or someplace else.

There’s many different ways to do it. It just really is up to the commission. I don’t know that there is anything written that gives direction on this.

CHAIR BONGIO:

Go ahead, Mike.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONER MIKE NEWMAN:

Well, since this is brought up, I’m, I’m … My thoughts are, put it along the lines of where the supervisors seat, and then have the two at-large on each outside wing, which would make it simple, there.

I don’t know if the supervisors have a specific placement — like, one, two, three, four, and then the alternate would be the chair, which goes in the middle — from wherever they were assigned for that policy or that term year.

So that was my thought, there. Just to make it consistent.

CHAIR BONGIO:

Okay. Go ahead, Thomas.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONER THOMAS MULDER:

So, I’ve never sat up here before but I used to follow these meetings a lot.

It doesn’t really make a preference to me. From my memory, when I used to come to these meetings it was kind of like Commissioner Newman mentioned, where the people sat wherever their district appointed them. They sat there, and then at-large were on the outside.

That’s just the way I remember. I didn’t take notes and pay a lot of attention to that. That’s just how I remember it.

COMMISSIONER MCCAVOUR:

So, well, from what I remember, I think I’ve always sat here. I think we were put here initially and we’ve just maintained the same spot that we were given initially.

But do you have a preference for your seat, Commissioner Mitchell?

COMMISSIONER MITCHELL:

Not necessarily. I just wanted to bring the topic up because we haven’t had to to do readjustments and …

You know, my recollection is, I…  When I was first appointed, and the newest person here, I was sat on the very edge, and the Chairman’s in the middle, so it made some logical sense to … to … to arrange it that way, but …

It’s not a strong preference. It was just something we hadn’t talked about and I wanted to address.

CHAIR BONGIO:

I’ll go along with whatever everybody else wants. I kind of … My place has kind of been chosen for me. So when you kick me out of here, then I’ll go to an end or something. I don’t know.

I guess from listening to the conversation, the only thing I don’t think would be fair is if the at-large people always get stuck out on the end, because they’re they’re no different than the rest of us.

So I don’t think it’s fair to always make them be out on the wing, though it’s no better or worse seat than anywhere else, to be honest.

COMMISSIONER MCCAVOUR:

So do you think it would just help if we all shifted down?

COMMISSIONER MITCHELL:

… and had three, Chair, three? I definitely think that would be a major Improvement.

CHAIR BONGIO:

That would work. That works for me. That work … would that work for you, Mike? Seems like it.

COMMISSIONER NEWMAN:

What do you mean by that?

COMMISSIONER MCCAVOUR:

That means Noah would sit here. [Ed. note: Commissioner Noah Levy was absent from the meeting.]

COMMISSIONER NEWMAN:

So are you talking about numbering through, with the districts? And then the outside wings being the at-large?

COMMISSIONER MCCAVOUR:

No, we’re just all shifting down a seat.

CHAIR BONGIO:

So we just would have three on each side of me.

Noah is usually right here, so… Well, Thomas is usually next to you and Peggy is down there, so… I don’t know if Peggy’s gonna go back to there, but there’ll be three on this side and there’ll be three on that side and I’ll be in the center. [Ed. note: Commissioner Peggy O’Neill was also absent.]

UNKNOWN STAFF MEMBER:

[Inaudible] … no rhyme or reason … [Inaudible]

CHAIR BONGIO:

I figured that was what happened.

COMMISSIONER NEWMAN:

All I’m saying: Consistency with, maybe, the number of districts, and that becomes the norm, and then the at-large on the outside, which is what it was before when I first came on in 2018.

COMMISSIONER MCCAVOUR:

No. It wasn’t …

CHAIR BONGIO:

I don’t think it’s ever been by …

COMMISSIONER NEWMAN:

No?

COMMISSIONER MITCHELL:

No.

CHAIR BONGIO:

… that we were sat where our supervisors were.

COMMISSIONER NEWMAN:

And I they think they move around too. That’s why …

CHAIR BONGIO:

I agree with that. They do.

COMMISSIONER NEWMAN:

… I have no preference. Just equal spacing, I think, is the key part as to what you were asking there, Commissioner Mitchell. Just having enough equal space instead of being crowded at one end. Yeah.

CHAIR BONGIO:

Maybe you and Thomas can arm-wrestle for who gets the end position.

COMMISSIONER MITCHELL:

[To Mulder] Okay. It’s all yours. [Chuckles.]

CHAIR BONGIO:

So is that good? We’ll just put three on each side.

COMMISSIONER MCCAVOUR:

Sounds good.

CHAIR BONGIO:

All right. [To Mitchell] You OK with that?

COMMISSIONER MITCHELL:

Yeah.

I think I’d like to draw up a draft proposal for the chart and just say “Here’s what I think makes sense,” and you guys can say “this is dumb” or “this makes sense,” and …

CHAIR BONGIO:

Okay. So do you want to bring this back, then, is what you’re saying?

COMMISSIONER MITCHELL:

Yeah!

CHAIR BONGIO:

Okay.

COMMISSIONER MITCHELL:

I’ll take it upon myself to put together something that makes sense.

CHAIR BONGIO:

All right. So, director, could you agendize this on next meeting again, so we can look at that?

DIRECTOR FORD:

Yes, I will.

CHAIR BONGIO:

Thank you.

Photo: Matt Filar

Your President of Positivity never let the threat of hypothermia stand in the way of her love of the children of her community. That’s why this Saturday she’ll be participating in the Discovery Museum’s annual frigid fundraiser: The Perilous Plunge. Go see your neighbors propel themselves into Humboldt Bay this Saturday at noon at the foot of F Street and support fun educational opportunities for local youth. 

###

The public has just one week left to weigh in on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed removal of the lower four Klamath River dams – the largest river restoration project in American history. 

The 990-page document, which was released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in February, contains the evaluation of the environmental, cultural and economic impacts associated with dam removal, as well the potential consequences of a “no-action alternative.” 

Removal of the four dams on the Lower Klamath River will open 420 miles of salmon spawning habitat as well as improve water quality and reduce critical temperature conditions that cause disease in threatened salmon species. Under the “no action alternative” the Lower Klamath Project would continue to operate as it does today.

“There would be no disturbance of existing environmental conditions at the site, and there would be no new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures,” the DEIR stated. “…The no-action alternative would not address the water quality and disease issues which, when combined with the ongoing trend of increased temperatures, pose a substantial risk to the survival of one of the few remaining Chinook salmon populations in California that still sustain important commercial, recreational, and Tribal fisheries.”

FERC’s relicensing proceedings would resume under the “no-action alternative” and it would have to determine “whether and under what conditions to relicense the project,” according to the DEIS. The current licensee, PacifiCorp, decided not to seek a license for the project and, as it stands, no other entity has come forward to continue operating the project for hydropower generation.

“Until a surrender order is issued, the project features would be maintained and operated by Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC) and the states [of California and Oregon],” the DEIS continued. “Ultimately, the project would have to be either relicensed or decommissioned because perpetual annual licensing is not authorized under the [Federal Power Act].”

Under the proposed action listed in the DEIS, the Lower Klamath Project would be decommissioned as proposed by PacifiCorp and the KRRC “with the inclusion of all of their proposed mitigation measures” and conditions issued by the California Water Board and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, as well as the biological opinions issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Comments on the DEIS may be submitted through April 18. Following public review, FERC will put together the final EIS and issue a permit for dam removal.

If everything goes according to plan, dam removal is slated to begin in early 2023.

The DEIS can be found here.

###

The state housing department is gearing up to send stern warnings to cities trying to skirt a new housing law advocates hope will bring more affordable housing.

Senate Bill 9, a state law that went into effect Jan. 1, allows property owners to build duplexes and in some cases, fourplexes, on most single-family parcels across the state. Cities, more than 240 of which opposed the bill, have pushed back against the state with ordinances that would severely curb what property owners can build.

The Housing and Community Development Department confirmed it has received complaints about 29 such cities it told CalMatters it plans to investigate. If it determines cities are indeed defying state housing laws, the department will send letters that offer technical assistance, and request a plan to fix those issues within 30 days.

The first of those letters will be sent out “relatively soon,” according to David Zisser, who leads the housing department’s newly created Housing Accountability Unit. Zisser said he hopes the department won’t have to issue letters to all the cities they investigate.

“By the time we send out a few letters, my hope is that jurisdictions will start to see themselves in those letters and start to make corrections to their own ordinances,” he said.

If a second warning letter fails, the state attorney general’s office, with whom they have been coordinating closely, would step in.

In fact, Attorney General Rob Bonta has intervened twice already. Pasadena carved out exemptions for landmark districts within the new law, which could apply to vast swaths of the city. Bonta told the city last month they could face a lawsuit if they didn’t reverse course. In a response letter, the city’s mayor said they are in full compliance with the law.

In February, Bonta also called out Woodside, a wealthy Silicon Valley town that claimed its entirety was protected mountain lion habitat and therefore couldn’t accommodate duplexes. It quickly reversed course following the state’s warning.

Both cities were on the housing department’s list of 29 cities.

The state housing department doesn’t have authority to enforce the duplex law, according to Zisser, which is why the cities on their list will be investigated for defying the 16 housing statutes under their purview, one of which limits a city’s ability to restrict the development of new housing.

Who’s on the naughty list?

Temple City, a Los Angeles suburb of 36,000 with a median home value of nearly $1 million, crafted an ordinance in December — ahead of the law going into effect — with a list of more than 30 development and design standards property owners must meet in order to develop new homes under the state’s new duplex-friendly law. The purpose of the ordinance was not a secret.

“What we’re trying to do here is to mitigate the impact of what we believe is a ridiculous state law,” said councilmember Tom Chavez during a Dec. 21 city council meeting, in which they unanimously adopted an urgency ordinance limiting the effect of the duplex law in the city. He acknowledged the state may push back.

Traditional single-family zoning — with room for one house for a single family with a front yard and a backyard — is what has always attracted people to Temple City, said William Man, another councilmember.

“SB 9, at least in principle, is dismantling that before our eyes,” he said.

Temple’s ordinance says property owners must get rid of their garage or driveway before getting a building permit, and residents of the new unit will be banned from obtaining street parking passes. New tenants can’t own a vehicle and must intend to walk, bike or take ubers around the suburb, according to a planning memo.

The city is also demanding that all new units meet the highest level of LEED certification, a designation typically held by premium office buildings like Facebook’s Headquarters in Menlo Park.

Finally, the new ordinance says new homes can be no larger than 800 square feet — also the minimum set by state law — and must be rented at below-market value to be affordable to low-income families for 30 years, a standard that is echoed across multiple cities’ anti-duplex law ordinances. A family of four would need to make $94,600 or less to qualify, and could only be charged 30% of their total income in rent, or $2,365 a month.

The affordability requirement threatens the viability of these projects, according to Muhammad Alameldin, a policy associate at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation who has been reviewing multiple ordinances for an upcoming analysis.

While developers who build affordable housing usually rely on subsidies from the federal and state governments to operate, “These are just homeowners who have no assistance from their localities or from anyone, and lack technical expertise,” he said.

Another city on the housing department’s list: Sonoma, a historic city north of San Francisco known for its ritzy wineries. Besides requiring similar affordability covenants for new housing, Sonoma now requires that any prospective duplex property have at least three mature trees and 10 shrubs. The new duplex unit or singular house would have a maximum area of 800 square feet, and at least 600 square feet of shared yard space.

“What we’re trying to do here is to mitigate the impact of what we believe is a ridiculous state law.”
— Tom Chavez, Temple City councilmember

The count of cities with restrictive ordinances is higher among some pro-housing advocacy organizations, like the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund. They identified more than 55 cities by following city council and planning department meetings in which “it’s pretty clear the intent is to limit the use of SB 9 as much as possible,” said the group’s executive director Dylan Casey.

The typical median income across the 55 cities was $129,000, while the average home cost $1.9 million.

“With few exceptions, these are mostly the very expensive, very high- income suburbs that are rushing to prevent implementation of SB 9,” Casey said.

A few other cities have engineered creative strategies to work around the law without catching heat from the state yet.

Absent from the state’s watch list is Laguna Beach, a surf town in Orange County, which is playing with geometry to ensure property owners don’t split their lots, according to Isaac Schneider, co-founder of Homestead, a startup that helps homeowners develop Accessory Dwelling Units and more recently, split their lots under the new duplex law.

Schneider said the law’s power lies in lot splits, whereby property owners can cut their land in half to create smaller, more affordable parcels and thus spur homeownership. Laguna Beach’s ordinance says the owner can’t do that, unless the new lot is a perfect rectangle.

That presents an issue, Schneider explained, because the line for most lots would need to be drawn behind an existing house — in the backyard. But in order to have street access, as required by law, planners normally create a flag shape, with a driveway or other access point to reach the new house without demolishing the existing structure. (Sonoma’s ordinance also bans flag lots.)

The ordinance also requires the new lot to border the road for at least 30 consecutive feet. However, the typical lot is 50 feet wide in Laguna Beach, Schneider’s group found. That means if a house is situated in the center of the lot, a lot split would require demolishing the existing home.

“They’ve made a math problem you cannot solve,” Schneider said.

When CalMatters asked if these restrictions would render most projects infeasible, Laguna Beach Community Development Director Marc Wiener wrote in an email: “The intent is that subdivided lots have standard property boundaries and that there is adequate vehicle access to both parcels. Most lots are rectangular and meet the 30-foot frontage requirement, therefore it is not viewed as a limiting factor.”

“With few exceptions, these are mostly the very expensive, very high- income suburbs that are rushing to prevent implementation of SB 9.”
— Dylan Casey, executive director of the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund

While the duplex law was a nail-biter in the Legislature, and continues to incite resistance among cities, it has barely made a dent in housing production. Planners in Bay Area cities haven’t heard a peep from property owners looking to split their parcels or build a duplex.

Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, says the law has only been in effect for 90 days, and resistance from cities is just a feature of housing legislation in the state.

“It’s not surprising at all that there will be resistance and cities will try to find loopholes,” he said. “We just need to enforce the law, and we now have the attorney general and (the housing department) willing to do that plus private litigants who will sue if need be. And if it turns out that there are loopholes that need to be closed, we can do that.”

But cities are also reverting to legal challenges. A group of four LA County cities, led by wealthy Redondo Beach, filed a lawsuit March 29 in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the attorney general’s office, claiming the state “eviscerated” cities’ land use control.

Bonta’s office issued a statement in response: “We look forward to defending this important law in court and we will not be deterred from our ongoing efforts to enforce SB 9 and other state housing laws.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

PG&E press release:

Starting Tuesday, April 12, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will begin conducting practice patrol flights in the North Coast, as part of its efforts to reduce the impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events on customers.
 
High winds can cause tree branches and debris to contact energized electric lines, damage equipment and cause a wildfire. As a result, we may need to turn off power during severe weather to help prevent wildfires. PG&E does NOT anticipate initiating a PSPS this week.
 
During an actual PSPS, power cannot be restored until the severe weather passes and the lines are free of tree branches and other debris. Crews will inspect de-energized lines utilizing aircraft, vehicles, and foot patrols to identify and repair damage before restoring power.
 
“These practice patrols are designed to gather information that helps PG&E understand the amount of time it takes to safely complete the patrol,” said Ron Richardson, Vice President of PG&E’s North Coast Region. “The pre-patrols improve safety, help us execute the patrol more efficiently and provide key information to determine service restoration timing – all to reduce the impact on our customers during an actual PSPS.”
 
PG&E will be flying different helicopters at different times Monday through Friday, but not necessarily every day, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. through the month of April.
 
Helicopters will fly low, roughly 100 feet, along electric distribution lines within Lake, Mendocino, and Humboldt counties. Patrol areas include: 
 
Annapolis, Bridgeville, Carlotta, Clearlake, Clearlake Oaks, Eel River, Elk, Fort Bragg, Fort Seward, Fruitland, Garberville, Gualala, Harris, Hoopa, Low Gap, Maple Creek, Middletown, Mount Konocti, Point Arena, Rio Dell, Willow Creek.  
 
If hazards or damage is identified during the patrols, they will be reported immediately.
 
Power will NOT be interrupted during patrols
 
We are continuing to evolve and improve to keep our customers safe and reduce the impacts of PSPS outages. There is no single solution to reducing the risk of wildfires.
That is why we are:

• Beginning to underground 10,000 miles of distribution powerlines in and near high fire-threat areas as part of an unprecedented, multiyear effort.

• Continuing to upgrade the electric grid by hardening powerlines to reduce wildfire risks.

• Installing sectionalizing devices to narrow the scope of PSPS outages so fewer customers are without power.

• Piloting new technologies that detect threats to the electric grid and rapidly reduce or shut off power.

• Installing microgrids that use generators to keep the electricity on during PSPS outages.

Every wildfire season is different, and the ongoing drought and the conditions will determine the number of times we will need to shut off power, without compromising safety.
 
PG&E’s  Safety Action Center  offers information for customers on how to prepare for PSPS events and what they can do to keep their family, home and business safe when outages occur.

(AUDIO) Justin Schwartzman is Holding Up

Citizens of Humboldt! Should you ever find yourself bored, rest easy knowing the creative folk of our region have done it again and have innovated yet another activity that graciously allows you to keep one hand free to hold a beer and/or joint. Yay, us! Introducing: Bounskee! 

A custom wood Bounskee

What is Bounskee, you are justified in wondering? Bounskee is a new locally made game that borrows elements from both skee-ball and beer pong and can be played by fun-seekers of virtually any age or physical ability. Click that video above and you’ll be hard-pressed to not grasp what’s happening, here. You throw the ping pong ball into the hole, you score points, you feel good. Simple.

On today’s edition of Humboldt Holding Up, we speak with local inventor Justin Schwartzman about how and why he developed Bounskee and what ambitions he has for pushing the game out into the world at large. His creation is already spreading local joy. You may have seen Bounskee units set up in Septentrio Winery, Six Rivers Brewery or Fieldbrook Market. And there’s already a Bounskee league that meets weekly at Humboldt Brews!

Click the audio player above or head over to Apple Podcasts to hear Justin’s chat with LoCO’s Andrew Goff and Stephanie McGeary. And also be sure to scroll our aural rolodex of past HHU guests below.

I had an “aha” moment last week reading this month’s Scientific American. The venerable magazine (it began life in 1845) and I go back a long way — I’ve been a subscriber since 1964–and I mostly trust its articles. Lately, it’s gone woke, with several overly political, ultra-liberal, articles that, IMHO, have no place between its covers. With that caveat, it still does a pretty good job covering “science writ large.”

The article in question is short and to the point, under the heading “Fake-News Sharers,” written by two researchers at Duke. They performed eight studies with nearly five thousand participants to figure out who was passing on all the fake stories that crop up in your and my social media feeds daily (hourly?).

Pizzagate protester (Becker1999 via flickr, Creative Commons license)

Now, we all tend to selectively believe information that jibes with our prior beliefs, and to reject what we don’t already believe. People have long known about “confirmation bias,” sometimes called “the yes-man in our brain.” For instance, around 400 BC, Thucydides wrote, “…it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy.” Confirmation bias is probably built right into our genes: rather than seeking the truth, our ancestors (from whom we inherited instinctive behaviors) presumably tried to avoid the most costly errors. So they tended to believe what someone in their tribe told them, not so much because it was true, but because the cost of disbelieving it — loss of friendship, death — was worse than accepting a dubious assertion.

The Duke researchers found that their test subjects, liberals and conservatives alike, selectively believed what they wanted to be true and what they’d be willing to pass on. One group, however, expressed a desire to share false news more than others: the “LCCs” or low-conscientiousness conservatives. Conscientiousness, a term used in personality tests, “captures differences in people’s orderliness, impulse control, conventionality and reliability.”

The research consisted of: first assessing participants’ political leanings and conscientiousness with tests that looked at their values and behaviors; then presenting their subjects with real and fake COVID-themed news stories, asking if they believed them and whether they’d share them. So far, so good — the participants said they believed and would pass on stories according to their prior beliefs. But — here’s the kicker — even when participants were told that an article which they’d indicated they’d be willing to share was false, LCCs still said they’d share it! But why, if they knew it wasn’t true?

My aha was this: according to the researchers, LCCs “expressed a general desire for chaos…the desire to disrupt and destroy the existing political and social institutions.” That is, they pass on stories they know to be fake because it furthers their desire for chaos.

Never mind whether someone actually believes that Jewish Space Lasers are responsible for wildfires, or that a Washington DC pizzeria kept children chained in its basement, or that the election was stolen (despite rulings to the contrary from 60 courts, including the right-leaning Supreme Court). The point isn’t truth or falsity; rather, it’s whatever furthers the goal of doing away with democracy and law and order. The point is to bring chaos to the nation. Or anarchy. Or fascism. Or revolution. From where I sit, it looks like it’s working.

Have a nice day.