Analyze

second thoughts on willowick

mikefortun
Annotation of
In response to

Katie Cox Shrader10:44 AM Today@kimfortun@uci.edu I know what you mean about that anxiety. Two thoughts: 

- Re working with urban planners and others on gentrification: Santa Ana has a long, rich history of anti-gentrification organizing, and many of the groups involved in those have worked with UCI including planners. I recall from my time working with Montoya that some of the politics there are sensitive. I think an important next step is to be researching/documenting some of that history and reaching out to groups like el Centro Cultural de México and the Kennedy Commission. Maybe the OC library archive too. It seems really important to include gentrification as a central part of our analysis of EiJ in SA and I think we have a lot to learn from them. Those conversations may give us some insight into how outside planners might help or support, and how they might already be doing so.

- This kind of discursive risk does seem really important to track... AB 617 certainly comes to mind here. I also wonder how we might discern the difference between instances where well-intentioned interventions are captured or coopted in implementation, and those where legislation is compromised from the outset. Not to be cynical, but I am very curious about what developers supported the Surplus Land Act. Is the kind of development that Rise Up Willowick is fighting a "detour from intent" or is it a predictable/anticipated outcome of incentivizing the auction of public land for (private) redevelopment? In other words, is the Surplus Land Act a mechanism for progressive redistribution (golf courses become affordable housing), or neoliberal privatization of public assets (city-owned green space becomes a Jamba Juice)? Such a very California question.Show lessReassigned to kimfortun@uci.eduKatie Cox Shrader10:46 AM Today@mike.fortun@uci.edu  ... Now am thinking we need to have a workflow for moving these side-bar conversations into PECE as analysis of field notes. Maybe we could be in the habit of having these conversations in the text of the document, rather than the comments?

pece_annotation_1472673547

wolmad
Annotation of
In response to

The reference section of this article tells us about the type and number of sources that information from this article was drawn from. This article's research was drawn from a mix of online and print sources, consisting of international policy, agency reports, previous peer reviewed research articles, and news reports.

pece_annotation_1472731196

Alexi Martin
Annotation of
In response to

The article was produced using research that was current to the topic at hand, but at the same time using research that provides why attempts at getting a response team was trying and the attempts made in the past 15+ years, supporting articles to why the argument is correct. The article was produced in response to the lack of preperation at nuclear events.

pece_annotation_1472749013

seanw146
Annotation of
In response to

The author uses a wide variety of news and journal sources to make their point. Everything from the New York Times to East Asian Science. It also cites many volumes on disaster preparedness. For example, “The Chernobyl Accident: a Case Study in International Law Regulation State Responsibility for Transboundary”. The sources tell me that the article was developed around the news at the time and works that dealt with handling of disasters from the past. For me, this furthers the case that the author is making: that the way we have been doing things in the past is not working.

pece_annotation_1472749613

seanw146
Annotation of
In response to

The author uses a wide variety of news and journal sources to make their point. Everything from the New York Times to East Asian Science. It also cites many volumes on disaster preparedness. For example, “The Chernobyl Accident: a Case Study in International Law Regulation State Responsibility for Transboundary”. The sources tell me that the article was developed around the news at the time and works that dealt with handling of disasters from the past. For me, this furthers the case that the author is making: that the way we have been doing things in the past is not working.

pece_annotation_1472841952

tamar.rogoszinski
Annotation of
In response to

It is clear from the bibliography as well as the notes, that Schmid is very educated in this field. She has done immense amounts of research (including citing herself), which shows that this is being written by an expert, and not a random scientist with an opinion. She provides information within her notes that help point someone seeking further information in the right direction. She also cites multiple sources form the same author, showing knowledge of other colleagues or experts within the field who may provide good insight and information.

pece_annotation_1472875365

Sara_Nesheiwat
Annotation of
In response to

Based off the references, it is clear that a very extensive amount of research was done with well over ~70 references. Based off the bibliography, a lot of data was collected from articles and reports on nuclear safety efforts. Also many of the references analyzed historical events and past nuclear disasters and emergency response regulations. The bibliography, which includes some of her other works shows she is an expert in the field and cited other experts as well.