The Polls opened up in Ohio this morning and will remain open until 7:30 PM tonight. Be sure to check that your polling station as not changed via the BOE website's poll search.
If you have an absentee ballot, you can still return it, but it must be received by the Board of Elections before 7:30 PM tonight. You best bet is to hand deliver it. The Hamilton County Board of Elections is located at 824 Broadway, Cincinnati, OH 45202.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
Seven
That's the number of messages from robo-calls that were on my answering machine today. Wow.
Interestingly, two of these were about Jeff Berding. One was from David Crowley, reminding me that "Jeff Berding is not a Democrat." The other was from Eric Kearney (a Democrat), supporting Jeff Berding.
I'll be glad when tomorrow is over.
Queen City Survey Signs Off
Dan from Queen City Survey posted yesterday that his blog is ending. He may spin off some of his featured content in other forms, but the blog will end, at least for now. Good Luck Dan and I hope to keep reading your interesting take on Cincinnati in other forms.
TV's Here to Keep You Ignorant
I guess I should thank John Kiesewetter for reporting on TV's continued indifference to society, but I'm not sure John has a problem with that. It is an injustice to the community that local TV stations will provide close to no coverage of important local elections. It is sad that the stations will still get more complaints about interrupting "So You Think You Can Dance?" for two minutes than calls wondering why they are not covering the fate of State Issues #2 and #3. What's ironic is that he mentions "V" the remade TV show that includes a totalitarian take over of the news media. That part of the fictional TV show is much closer to reality than not.
Monzel Lies in Campaign Ad
So, I disagree with Chris Monzel on most things, but I respected him for being a person of personal principle. Well, now he's lying in his campaign TV spot about the streetcar, so that respect has gone out the window. Where does he lie:
1. The streetcar does not just go a "few blocks" as he put it. No matter how you want to define blocks, saying that from the Riverfront to Clifton is a few blocks is like saying the Ohio River is a tiny creek.
2. Building the Streetcar will benefit the entire city and region. The jobs created to build it will come from across the city. The property value increases with result in more tax revenue for the city, which benefits the entire city. Monzel knows that a strong central core of a city is critical to being prosperous
3. The projected cost is 185 million, not 200 million. I guess he could claim a rounding error there, but seriously, come on...
4. Monzel clearly implies the city would be funding the full 185 million, which Monzel knows to be false. The Streetcar plan calls for Federal and State funding that will make up the bulk of the project. That money will not come for anything else, so there is no money to divert to a pet project he wants to use to buy off votes.
If you are against the Streetcars, fine, I can agree to disagree with you, but those I've talked with who are either unsure about it or just against it, don't lie about the plan or about the goals. Here Monzel knowingly makes false statements about elements of the plan and overwhelmingly misleads on everything else. That's a lie where I come from. Spinning details in politics is a gray line, but Monzel knows better and has held a higher standard in the past. This is a new low for him. I guess he's worried about his re-election chances and wants to get every ignorant voter to the polls he can. This type of ad is not worthy of a candidate. If you've heard this type of tactic in the past, most of the time its from a 3rd party group, who tend to do the dirty work in place of the candidate. Monzel gets dirty all on his own.
1. The streetcar does not just go a "few blocks" as he put it. No matter how you want to define blocks, saying that from the Riverfront to Clifton is a few blocks is like saying the Ohio River is a tiny creek.
2. Building the Streetcar will benefit the entire city and region. The jobs created to build it will come from across the city. The property value increases with result in more tax revenue for the city, which benefits the entire city. Monzel knows that a strong central core of a city is critical to being prosperous
3. The projected cost is 185 million, not 200 million. I guess he could claim a rounding error there, but seriously, come on...
4. Monzel clearly implies the city would be funding the full 185 million, which Monzel knows to be false. The Streetcar plan calls for Federal and State funding that will make up the bulk of the project. That money will not come for anything else, so there is no money to divert to a pet project he wants to use to buy off votes.
If you are against the Streetcars, fine, I can agree to disagree with you, but those I've talked with who are either unsure about it or just against it, don't lie about the plan or about the goals. Here Monzel knowingly makes false statements about elements of the plan and overwhelmingly misleads on everything else. That's a lie where I come from. Spinning details in politics is a gray line, but Monzel knows better and has held a higher standard in the past. This is a new low for him. I guess he's worried about his re-election chances and wants to get every ignorant voter to the polls he can. This type of ad is not worthy of a candidate. If you've heard this type of tactic in the past, most of the time its from a 3rd party group, who tend to do the dirty work in place of the candidate. Monzel gets dirty all on his own.
Charlie Don't Surf
So I take that either Charlie Winburn's robo-call targeting African-American voters is valid and Winburn would support the Mayor's Majority on council, or he is pandering and lying to the African-American community in hopes they won't notice his Republican political stances. Charlie is claiming he voted for Obama, but is siding with the hard right conservative FOP senior leaders who are totally negative on the city and have been the biggest problem with police relations with the African-American community for years. Some of these yahoos would just as soon drop Napalm on certain parts of the city and start over, than actually get off their duffs and protect and serve all of the citizens in this city.
I really hope people don't fall for this, but it unfortunately works with elderly people, who are one of the biggest targets robo-callers hope to reach. I hope some tech-savvy grannies read this blog.
I really hope people don't fall for this, but it unfortunately works with elderly people, who are one of the biggest targets robo-callers hope to reach. I hope some tech-savvy grannies read this blog.
Cincinnati Opera Online Auction Begins
Check out the items up for bid in the Cincinnati Opera's Online Auction.
Also, don't forget the Cincy Opera will be having the Opera Ball After-Party on November 21st, so buy your tickets now ($30 pre-sale, $40 at the door).
Also, don't forget the Cincy Opera will be having the Opera Ball After-Party on November 21st, so buy your tickets now ($30 pre-sale, $40 at the door).
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Post-Release Control Is Not Parole
This morning's Enquirer contains a story about people being freed from prison without being placed on "parole," even though, by law, they should be supervised following their release from prison. Sharon Coolidge picked up on an important issue here, as there are some people who should be supervised upon the expiration of their prison term, and the courts should make sure their sentences are properly announced.
I've not seen the Enquirer's stylebook, but it's apparently the newspaper's policy to use the word "parole" to mean any form of supervision following a term of imprisonment. I think I've talked about this issue before, but it's an important one that we should all understand.
Most people's understanding of "parole" comes from movies like The Shawshank Redemption. An inmate is given an indeterminate sentence (for instance, "10 to 20 years" or "25 to life") and at some point after the minimum sentence has been served, he comes in front of a parole board, who can decide to let him go free under some form of supervision. And that's exactly what parole is: the release of a prisoner before his full sentence has been served. This is the definition one would find in either Black's Law Dictionary or Merriam-Webster.
Until 1996, Ohio used a system of indeterminate sentencing system, so parole was common. In the '90's, though, the public cried out for "truth in sentencing" laws and the General Assembly responded. Now, apart from murder, defendants get definite sentences. A judge says "1 year" or "10 years" or "20 years," and that's how long a defendant serves. The only way that sentence can be substantially shortened is by the judge or with the judge's approval.
But when the legislature changed the law in 1996, it realized that some defendants wouldn't be ready to transition back into society without assistance or supervision. So for some offenses, once a defendant serves the full term imposed by the judge, he'll be supervised by the Adult Parole Authority for up to five years. This supervision is called post-release control, or PRC.
The problem the Enquirer points out is that in the past, some judges failed to inform a defendant (at the time he was sentenced) of post-release control. I wasn't practicing in the late 1990's, but that doesn't seem surprising. Judges had never had to inform defendants of parole, so why tell them about PRC? Besides, the judges have nothing to do with whether a defendant is placed on PRC. In some cases it's mandatory, and in others the Adult Parole Authority has discretion to require some individuals to serve a term of PRC. (Today, most judges use a script in sentencing hearings, and the PRC admonition is part of that script.)
In a series of cases, though, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that PRC is part of a defendant's sentence. That means that the judge has to announce it along with the rest of the sentence. Permitting the APA (part of the executive branch) to supervise someone on PRC even though that wasn't included in the sentence violates the principle of separation of powers. But the Supreme Court created an easy fix: as long as a defendant is still serving his sentence, a court can recall him from prison and re-sentence him. A judge can do that years (or decades) after a defendant has been sentenced. The error cannot be fixed, however, once an inmate is released. And, in fact, if PRC wasn't part of the sentence and the APA places the inmate under its supervision anyhow, it has to release the inmate once the error is realized.
So the Enquirer is right, in substance. Some inmates who have served their sentences may not be supervised once back in society as the legislature had intended. But in discussing this issue, it's helpful to know that these are all people who served their full sentence, and are not defendants released early at the discretion of the parole board.
I've not seen the Enquirer's stylebook, but it's apparently the newspaper's policy to use the word "parole" to mean any form of supervision following a term of imprisonment. I think I've talked about this issue before, but it's an important one that we should all understand.
Most people's understanding of "parole" comes from movies like The Shawshank Redemption. An inmate is given an indeterminate sentence (for instance, "10 to 20 years" or "25 to life") and at some point after the minimum sentence has been served, he comes in front of a parole board, who can decide to let him go free under some form of supervision. And that's exactly what parole is: the release of a prisoner before his full sentence has been served. This is the definition one would find in either Black's Law Dictionary or Merriam-Webster.
Until 1996, Ohio used a system of indeterminate sentencing system, so parole was common. In the '90's, though, the public cried out for "truth in sentencing" laws and the General Assembly responded. Now, apart from murder, defendants get definite sentences. A judge says "1 year" or "10 years" or "20 years," and that's how long a defendant serves. The only way that sentence can be substantially shortened is by the judge or with the judge's approval.
But when the legislature changed the law in 1996, it realized that some defendants wouldn't be ready to transition back into society without assistance or supervision. So for some offenses, once a defendant serves the full term imposed by the judge, he'll be supervised by the Adult Parole Authority for up to five years. This supervision is called post-release control, or PRC.
The problem the Enquirer points out is that in the past, some judges failed to inform a defendant (at the time he was sentenced) of post-release control. I wasn't practicing in the late 1990's, but that doesn't seem surprising. Judges had never had to inform defendants of parole, so why tell them about PRC? Besides, the judges have nothing to do with whether a defendant is placed on PRC. In some cases it's mandatory, and in others the Adult Parole Authority has discretion to require some individuals to serve a term of PRC. (Today, most judges use a script in sentencing hearings, and the PRC admonition is part of that script.)
In a series of cases, though, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that PRC is part of a defendant's sentence. That means that the judge has to announce it along with the rest of the sentence. Permitting the APA (part of the executive branch) to supervise someone on PRC even though that wasn't included in the sentence violates the principle of separation of powers. But the Supreme Court created an easy fix: as long as a defendant is still serving his sentence, a court can recall him from prison and re-sentence him. A judge can do that years (or decades) after a defendant has been sentenced. The error cannot be fixed, however, once an inmate is released. And, in fact, if PRC wasn't part of the sentence and the APA places the inmate under its supervision anyhow, it has to release the inmate once the error is realized.
So the Enquirer is right, in substance. Some inmates who have served their sentences may not be supervised once back in society as the legislature had intended. But in discussing this issue, it's helpful to know that these are all people who served their full sentence, and are not defendants released early at the discretion of the parole board.
What Constitutes A Tax Increase?
This past week, we saw more drama in City Council, this time over whether--and when--to change property tax rates for 2010. City Council has three options: leave the millage the same, a move which would--because of increases in property values--generate about $400,000 more in 2010 than in 2009; raise the millage to the maximum allowable; or "roll back" the millage rate to generate exactly the same amount of money it did in 2009.
First, let me say at the outset: I have no position on the property tax rate. I think Council members and candidates should make their positions clear prior to Election Day. It appears some may favor leaving the millage alone, while others favor rolling it back. I've not heard anyone suggest raising it to the maximum millage permissible. Frankly, I don't care when Council takes this action, assuming members have given voters some inkling of their intentions prior to the election. (Council members are, of course, free to remain silent until after Tuesday. And voters are free to withhold their votes on that basis.)
But I'm curious about those who describe the maintenance of the current millage as a "tax increase." Is that really a fair description? If you spend more money this year than last and therefore pay more sales tax, you wouldn't complain about a sales tax increase (assuming the rate stayed at 6.5%). Similarly, if your income went up and you paid more income taxes, you wouldn't (assuming a flat tax rate) think you suffered from a "tax increase."
It seems to me Council has three options. Leave the property tax alone, increase it (perhaps dramatically), or decrease it ("roll it back"). Others seem to suggest there are just two options: roll back the millage (which they say is leaving it the same) or "increase" property taxes.
What's your take?
First, let me say at the outset: I have no position on the property tax rate. I think Council members and candidates should make their positions clear prior to Election Day. It appears some may favor leaving the millage alone, while others favor rolling it back. I've not heard anyone suggest raising it to the maximum millage permissible. Frankly, I don't care when Council takes this action, assuming members have given voters some inkling of their intentions prior to the election. (Council members are, of course, free to remain silent until after Tuesday. And voters are free to withhold their votes on that basis.)
But I'm curious about those who describe the maintenance of the current millage as a "tax increase." Is that really a fair description? If you spend more money this year than last and therefore pay more sales tax, you wouldn't complain about a sales tax increase (assuming the rate stayed at 6.5%). Similarly, if your income went up and you paid more income taxes, you wouldn't (assuming a flat tax rate) think you suffered from a "tax increase."
It seems to me Council has three options. Leave the property tax alone, increase it (perhaps dramatically), or decrease it ("roll it back"). Others seem to suggest there are just two options: roll back the millage (which they say is leaving it the same) or "increase" property taxes.
What's your take?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Voices Behind the Blog
Last week, Stephen Carter-Novotni sat down with Griff and me for CityBeat's thirty-second podcast. The hour-long conversation covers a wide variety of topics, including our takes on the constantly shifting lines between social media, blogging, and journalism; why Griff started the blog (and why I joined him); and which blogs we read.
Many thanks to Stephen for inviting us to participate and for being an extremely gracious podcast host, as well as for doing his best not to make us look any dumber than our own dumbness naturally requires.
Thank You WOXY!
I was very glad to read CitBeat's blog post about WOXY's Local Lixx program keeping a Cincinnati centric edition going after WOXY moved its operation to Austin, TX. Thanks to all the WOXY team for keeping this showcase of great Cincinnati area music going.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Relish Leaves A Bad Taste In My Mouth
Martin Wade of the Relish Group is apparently threatening to sue Jean Robert de Cavel to prevent him from opening a restaurant in the space formerly occupied by Buddhakhan. Wade claims that the chef signed some sort of non-compete agreement when the partnership dissolved. (Hat tip: Polly Campbell's blog, which I'm having difficulty linking to right now.)
Given Jean Robert's popularity in this area, this seems like a terrible PR move. Did Wade really think it was a good idea to make public that he would do everything he could to prevent a viable business from opening in a vacant space in the center of downtown? And does he really think people will support his effort to keep Jean Robert--who adopted this city as his own even after he and his wife had every reason to return to their native land--from continuing to be a culinary presence here?
What's more, non-compete agreements are notoriously difficult to enforce. The courts don't like them. Who wants to strip someone of his or her livelihood? I'm sure Jean Robert will have no difficulty finding able counsel to represent his interests should Wade decide to sue. I can think of plenty of attorneys with expertise in that field who would be willing--quite literally--to work for food. (As long as it's Jean Robert's.)
Given Jean Robert's popularity in this area, this seems like a terrible PR move. Did Wade really think it was a good idea to make public that he would do everything he could to prevent a viable business from opening in a vacant space in the center of downtown? And does he really think people will support his effort to keep Jean Robert--who adopted this city as his own even after he and his wife had every reason to return to their native land--from continuing to be a culinary presence here?
What's more, non-compete agreements are notoriously difficult to enforce. The courts don't like them. Who wants to strip someone of his or her livelihood? I'm sure Jean Robert will have no difficulty finding able counsel to represent his interests should Wade decide to sue. I can think of plenty of attorneys with expertise in that field who would be willing--quite literally--to work for food. (As long as it's Jean Robert's.)
Hollan TV Commerical
Nicholas Hollan has released his TV commercial which was to hit the airwaves earlier this week:
Thursday, October 29, 2009
One Blog, Several Voices
Any reasonable person knows this already, but I thought I'd point it out in case there was any doubt.
When we post here, each of us speaks for him- or herself. When I express ambivalence about the streetcar, it should be obvious that Griff does not share this sentiment. Griff doesn't need to specifically rebut me in order for his disagreement to stand. Conversely, I don't agree with everything others write here, though I don't typically write rebuttals. (The exception, of course, is Jack. As he is theoldest wisest of the four of us, I always reflexively agree with him.)
Back to regular blogging.
When we post here, each of us speaks for him- or herself. When I express ambivalence about the streetcar, it should be obvious that Griff does not share this sentiment. Griff doesn't need to specifically rebut me in order for his disagreement to stand. Conversely, I don't agree with everything others write here, though I don't typically write rebuttals. (The exception, of course, is Jack. As he is the
Back to regular blogging.
And We Will Know They Are Christians By Their . . .?
On Wednesday, the Family Research Council (FRC) issued a statement objecting to the Obama administration’s pledge to “establish the nation’s first national resource center” to assist communities providing services to elderly LGBT communities. The statement from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted that there are now “as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older.” FRC counters that providing such services makes no sense because there just are not that many LGBT senior citizens because “homosexual conduct” makes them die early, stating:
In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.
Of course, the real tragedy here–apart from the unnecessary spending–is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens! Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America. If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!
Do these people have any idea how stupid they sound? Oh, and by the way, can any of my Human Rights Campaign colleagues who were positively giddy at the signing of the Hate Crimes legislation point me to a place in President Obama's signing statement where he uttered the word gay?
And while America's Attorney General apparently doesn't "really know enough about the referendum over there to comment" (yes, he really did say such a cowardly and false thing), there is a referendum in Maine next week that would undo the representative democratic process (yes, that is how America works) that expanded the right to marry in Maine to gay and lesbian citizens. So please join me in supporting No On One Final Push in Maine! To see details and contribute now please go to
http://www.actblue.com/page/noononefinalpush/recipient/735875
In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.
Of course, the real tragedy here–apart from the unnecessary spending–is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens! Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America. If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!
Do these people have any idea how stupid they sound? Oh, and by the way, can any of my Human Rights Campaign colleagues who were positively giddy at the signing of the Hate Crimes legislation point me to a place in President Obama's signing statement where he uttered the word gay?
And while America's Attorney General apparently doesn't "really know enough about the referendum over there to comment" (yes, he really did say such a cowardly and false thing), there is a referendum in Maine next week that would undo the representative democratic process (yes, that is how America works) that expanded the right to marry in Maine to gay and lesbian citizens. So please join me in supporting No On One Final Push in Maine! To see details and contribute now please go to
http://www.actblue.com/page/noononefinalpush/recipient/735875
Desperate Wenstrup Doesn't Support Cincinnati
Mayoral Candidate Bran Wenstrup is reading the polls and going negative because he has no other way to try and dent the lead Mark Mallory has in the race. This is no big suprise for all of the talk about Wenstrup run a very above board campaign, he's reveled that he will use fear at the end of the day as his main campaign tactic.
What I find more troubling is the fact that Wenstrup doesn't have the pride or trust of the city to run his campaign finances out of an office within the city. Instead he is running it from the office of Anderson Township Republicans. According to Brad's website the Citizens for Wenstrup, Jill Springman, Treasurer is located at 262 Jakaro Drive, "Cincinnati", OH 45255. Let's do a little Google Search and see where that address is:
View Larger Map
So if anyone can do geography, even slightly, you would notice that the point on the map above is way out in Anderson Township, past the mall, off of Eight Mile Road. Furthermore, if you do another Google Search you would find that address is shared by the Anderson Township Republican Club, it is also the based for the HC Republican Woman's Club. A shocking coincidence? No, we knew that is where his support comes from.
In all fairness I will point out that Wenstrup is also using a 700 walnut St. address Downtown on his mailers, which is another county Republican Group's HQ, so he's at least got a presence inside the city, but his money base lies outside the City. So, not only does Wenstrup not support the City, he doesn't have much support within the City, if he has to go out of the City for his campaign contributions. When he started his campaign committee, where did he go to start his campaign, who did he turn to? He went outside the City. Brad has the mindset of someone who just does not support the city and obviously feels more at home outside the city. His political fortune might be more successful outside the city. It will not be successful within it.
What I find more troubling is the fact that Wenstrup doesn't have the pride or trust of the city to run his campaign finances out of an office within the city. Instead he is running it from the office of Anderson Township Republicans. According to Brad's website the Citizens for Wenstrup, Jill Springman, Treasurer is located at 262 Jakaro Drive, "Cincinnati", OH 45255. Let's do a little Google Search and see where that address is:
View Larger Map
So if anyone can do geography, even slightly, you would notice that the point on the map above is way out in Anderson Township, past the mall, off of Eight Mile Road. Furthermore, if you do another Google Search you would find that address is shared by the Anderson Township Republican Club, it is also the based for the HC Republican Woman's Club. A shocking coincidence? No, we knew that is where his support comes from.
In all fairness I will point out that Wenstrup is also using a 700 walnut St. address Downtown on his mailers, which is another county Republican Group's HQ, so he's at least got a presence inside the city, but his money base lies outside the City. So, not only does Wenstrup not support the City, he doesn't have much support within the City, if he has to go out of the City for his campaign contributions. When he started his campaign committee, where did he go to start his campaign, who did he turn to? He went outside the City. Brad has the mindset of someone who just does not support the city and obviously feels more at home outside the city. His political fortune might be more successful outside the city. It will not be successful within it.
Name Some Names
So, some Democratic incumbents/candidates or their staffs are ticked at Laure Quinlivan's campaign rhetoric. I really think CityBeat's Kevin Osborne should name who is pissed because I think this is quite silly. Quinlivan basically is saying she is more qualified than others, her opinion, which the voters can decide on, nothing new. Also, she is running against the incumbents, but doesn't name, names. Well, she's a challenger and needs to go after those on a faceless council. I don't like the tactic, but it is hardly harsh. She wants to win and other candidates, even Dem candidates, could be taking aways votes from her, so if she can criticize on the sly her fellow Dems, she'd gotta do it, especially when she thinks she better for the office than others.
If she did encourage the use of the "bullet voting" tactic, then that was really selfish, but not the kind of thing you air to the press until after the election.
This is the type of thing that other Dems can be pissed about, but it isn't new and isn't what I would NOT call uncommon. It also pales in comparison to the active council maneuvering Jeff Berding undertook against his fellow Dems, not to mention the negative comments he made about the city. That is being a bad party member.
Not going on the record and trying to get a background based story out of a CityBeat reporter is rather gutless.
If she did encourage the use of the "bullet voting" tactic, then that was really selfish, but not the kind of thing you air to the press until after the election.
This is the type of thing that other Dems can be pissed about, but it isn't new and isn't what I would NOT call uncommon. It also pales in comparison to the active council maneuvering Jeff Berding undertook against his fellow Dems, not to mention the negative comments he made about the city. That is being a bad party member.
Not going on the record and trying to get a background based story out of a CityBeat reporter is rather gutless.
The Foursome of No
The foursome on council referred to as the Minority Four (Berding, Bortz, Ghiz, and Monzel) are clearly playing games with critical issues and are quite frankly being hypocrites. The Four want to push through a vote on property taxes, but they want more time on the Queensgate barge facility, East Side zoning issues and federal funding for a homeless shelter.
I just really hate games and I hate it when the games are so obvious. When you lack the votes and resort to using obscure rules to obstruct projects and issues that a majority of council supports, it shows very clearly that you (the Four) are more concerned about politics and getting reelected than about getting something done.
Why is it horrible to wait on voting on the Property Tax? The Four don't have the votes on it, so all they are doing is playing for the media and hoping that a lot of people are actually paying attention. The few of us who follow this type of detail know this is a stunt, even if Boyscout Chris Monzel says he actually has concerns about these issues and wants to delay the vote. What's the excuse for the other three?
I just really hate games and I hate it when the games are so obvious. When you lack the votes and resort to using obscure rules to obstruct projects and issues that a majority of council supports, it shows very clearly that you (the Four) are more concerned about politics and getting reelected than about getting something done.
Why is it horrible to wait on voting on the Property Tax? The Four don't have the votes on it, so all they are doing is playing for the media and hoping that a lot of people are actually paying attention. The few of us who follow this type of detail know this is a stunt, even if Boyscout Chris Monzel says he actually has concerns about these issues and wants to delay the vote. What's the excuse for the other three?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Charlie's Circus
The lawsuit filed against Council candidate Charlie Winburn seems very far fetched, but this points to the circus that surrounds Winburn. The man the filed the lawsuit allegedly was employed by Winburn's church for about a year. The article also points out that Winburn has Sam Malone as an associate, and Malone allegedly interacted with the individual who filed the lawsuit. Malone, the former council member, was charged with beating his son with a belt in 2005, but was later acquitted.
Irregardless of the validity of this lawsuit, Winburn will just be bad for council. He has nothing to show for his prior time on council and has an extreme set of political beliefs that have no place in modern society.
Also, Dem Chair Burke is worried about Winburn for another reason.
Irregardless of the validity of this lawsuit, Winburn will just be bad for council. He has nothing to show for his prior time on council and has an extreme set of political beliefs that have no place in modern society.
Also, Dem Chair Burke is worried about Winburn for another reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)