Subscribe to the Newspaper
View the Online Newspaper
Welcome
Search: Site   Web
I Think, Therefore I Blog ~ Life. People. Writing. Books. Internet. Politics (sometimes). Big Questions, Little Questions, Food.

Archive for October, 2009

Ron Hart, wrong on multiple points

October 30th, 2009, 2:26 pm by fsherman

From his column (I think it’s only in the Sun this time):
“the voters will not get those facts if Obama has his way and undermines the free press—a.k.a. Fox News and talk radio. His administration has declared war on Fox News, the only organization left on TV which will take Obama to task and report the truth. ”

How exactly is saying Fox News is biased and not giving them interviews a war on the free press? The Bush administration and its dutiful pundits screamed about how everyone was biased all through W’s White House tenure (and still do); they’ve also cut journalists out of the loop for not taking the appropriate position.
Yes, I know, Fox is a Republican organ and as a loyal Republican, Hart is obligated to take its side. But it’s still nonsense.
“Not until his henchmen, or -women, who do his daily dirty work while he smiles and strokes people just like they wrote it for him on his teleprompter, come after you do you realize how dangerous they are. ”
Like say, the military accidentally shooting journalists in Iraq? Or holding them without trial or charges? Funny, don’t remember a peep out of Hart about that.
Hart: “Emanuel revealed himself early by saying that Democrats “should never let a good crisis go to waste.” Translation: take any advantage you can to push your spending bills and agenda, and never mind that they are not related to the “crisis.” And if there is one thing that politicians produce well, it is a crisis. ”
As opposed to say, Bush, who said in 1999 that if he got into a war, he was going to milk it for political capital to push his domestic agenda?
“Obama’s administration even told federal law enforcement not to go after California’s marijuana sales. I guess his new motto is “Yes we cannabis.” It will be easier to pass their agenda if the country is stoned. ”
And Hart thinks this is a bad thing? We will have to disagree on that.
“In another assault on free enterprise, Obama overreached and cut salaries of some executives 90 percent (no word on cutting his own administration’s salaries based on performance). This came after passing a bill that purchased more personal jet aircraft for the government. To be sure, our elected officials should fly in style since they are now auto executives and bank presidents. ”
Let’s be clear: He cut the salaries of executives in companies taking bail-out money. They had the option to refuse the government money and be true to their free-market principles; when they didn’t, they accepted the government yoke.
Come on, if the automakers had announced they were using their bail out funds to give huge bonuses to all the union workers, Hart would have a complete meltdown; so what’s the difference? Especially given that many of these executives are the same ones who led their company into the gutter of red ink.
As usual, Mr. Hart is a world of FAIL.

Walter Williams, humor writer

October 30th, 2009, 2:15 pm by fsherman

On Obama’s military policies: “If we become a military weakling, who is going to protect Europe?”
Given that we have a military budget equal to the rest of the entire world’s, has Williams any evidence Obama plans to cut it enough to make us a “weakling?”

Daily News letters again

October 30th, 2009, 2:12 pm by fsherman

First we have Sam Patti, die-hard Republican asserting that “52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were orthodox … Bible carrying Christians. The three others all believed in the Bible as the Divine Truth.”
I’m inclined to suspect he’s full of it since Thomas Jefferson signed the Declaration and he spent a lot of effort editing the Bible (out with miracles and other stuff he felt religion had added to the truth) to create one of his own. So he was hardly orthodox, and hardly accepted the Bible as “divine truth” in the way it’s usually meant today.
Even if so—so what? The Founders of this country wrote a secular Constitution that didn’t mention God except to say there would be no religious tests for office (something seen as scandalously anti-Christian at the time). They may all have been Christians (although much of what I read seems otherwise) but they didn’t create a Christian nation as anyone at the time (or today) would think of it.
Then Patti asserts that “since the 1960s, God has not been welcome in America.” So God was more welcome back in the days of Jim Crow segregation? Back when it was legal to hire and fire based on religion and gender and gays were banned from federal service?
I think Patti’s God and mine have different perspectives.
Then we have Eileen Zunich of Miramar Beach who asserts that Obama’s stance on Fox News is “beyond what any previous administration has done” regarding “controlling all news coverage.”
Yes, criticizing Fox and not giving them interviews is sooo much greater control than say, Bush administration’s record:
•Paying columnists to write favorable pieces
•Ignoring Helen Thomas, a veteran white house reporter, when she kept asking unwanted questions
•The Pentagon’s program for providing the media with military “experts” who had agreed to support the administration’s war plans, while discouraging the use of talking heads who didn’t.
•Staged mock press conferences with FEMA employees pretending to be reporters.
Then, today, we have a letter from Rodger Woltjer of Niceville who’s very upset that because of animal rights groups the circus is no longer “a celebrated event shared by young and old alike” and that by protesting animal cruely they have joined “the ranks of the Anti-Christ crowd.” Because Jesus really loved animal cruelty?

Okay, there’s a motion

October 26th, 2009, 8:58 pm by fsherman

To recommend to city council to direct city staff to amend the document to include a parking fee and proceed from there.
Unanimous! The crowd goes wild (not really)!
Kelly did abstain.
Jim Bagby: Moves to schedule another item to pick up 2, 3 and 4 and that they call it a night. i.e., motion to continue.
Kisela: “Thank you!”
Unanimous!
And it’s done. we’re adjourned. Free, free at last!

And they’re still debating procedure

October 26th, 2009, 8:54 pm by fsherman

Man, I don’t know when I’ve been this uncertain what’s going on.

Bagby’s turn

October 26th, 2009, 8:53 pm by fsherman

His understanding: Staff were going to bring back a motion that the council approve 2-4 and give a choice of housing or CIP. Kisela: It comes down to objectivity or subjectivity.
And more discussion erupts as to what anyone said on which substitute motion–gotta say, it’s been a long time since everyone got this confused over what they were doing.
Dewey: Giving choices of CIP project or housg does give the developer more choices. So there is some more subjectivity.
Kisela: So if a developer comes in, says he’ll do 1-4, it still has to go before council for approval–so there’s still no guarantee of certainty.
Wood: “We have yet to have any project built under the tier system.” We don’t know the impact. Should we wait? Are we assuming there’s a problem when we haven’t seen the result?
Kisela: “I know for a fact, two developers who selected Tier Two did so because of the subjectivity of the Tier Three process … you couldn’t entice them to go to a tier three … they liked the certainty of a tier two.”
Craig: “I think it’s pretty clear how you feel about this issue.”
Sam: Who gets to determine which item in the CIP budget?
Kisela: that would negotiated and brought back to council?
Sam: “I’m telling you, I just can’t do it. I want to.”
The vote: 4-3 against, with Dewey, Bagby and Wood voting yes.
Dewey: Direct staff to go forward with whatever research they have to do to put parking into the mix and include that as one of the standards. Or more accurately to recommend that motion to the council.
Seevers: In addition to affordable housing? Dewey: Yep.
Kelly: If we’re changing Tier Three, should I abstain? Because the Fishing Fleet Marina has a tier three project in the works. City Attorney Jerry Miller: No. Windes: He’s abstaining anyway.
(I’m not sure how this affects tier three, by the way).
And we’re now in one of the parliamentary debates over procedure.

Dewey

October 26th, 2009, 8:41 pm by fsherman

Originally had not meant to take out housing from the list, but had meant to add the CIP to give them a bigger shopping list to work with.
Cyron Marler (who’s been biting his tongue for a while) gets up to the podium. “I don’t see the rental prices going down–there’s a lot more rental places but prices aren’t going down because people are still trying to make their mortgage payments.”
Now the original purpose of Tier Three, he says, was to encourage people to go to Tier Three and get the public benefit. Keeping housing in tier three was a good idea at the time–now that the economy is tanking, it seems to be inspiring us to push the tier three standards downward. which isn’t such a good idea.
And at this point, we’re still nowhere near workforce housing. It’s in the comp plan, but we’ve got negotiations for the 2020 comp plan ahead.

Dewey: “i do not understand the logic–”

October 26th, 2009, 8:36 pm by fsherman

“of saying what is fair for Tier Three is unreasonable for Tier Two.” And the council needs the flexibility.
Mercifully, Jim Wood then asks what the motions are.
Craig: I think the latest motion is based on Ashley’s suggestion.
Ashley: Leave 2-4 as is. Drop the affordable-housing fee from Tier 2b and include “significant contribution to public infrastructure” to use the Tier Three fee.
Kisela: Or do you want a negotiated benefit? We can do either way. The motion we gave you is standardized, but when you bring in negotiation it gets more subjective.
Dewey’s talking about negotiation again–I’m not sure if that’s an alternative to Ashely’s suggestion or as part of it.
Sandy Trammell: The more objective we can be the better. “We need to get it right before we decide” so our directive to staff isn’t “wishy-washy.” “Anything we can do make it more objective makes it simpler and easier for everyone involved.”
Bennett: The whole reason the Tiering rules were set up were that they believed these rules were objective and legally defensible. Bring a subjective element in, you bring back the compatibility problem.
And the city never won using a compatibility standard, except one, Windward Marine (not true–the proposed Home Depot in Crystal Beach got shot down on compatibility grounds).
If these standards survive, great, but there’s better ways to raise money for infrastructure.
Bagby: It’s two questions. A, what are our standards? On question A, he’d favor 2,3,4 and the CIP contribution. That gives some flexibility instead of tying us to workforce housing, because at the moment, parking is more important.
Next question: Where do we include subjectivity in the process? We’re going to have some, but where? Where should the cut-off be? He thinks seventy feet as the boundary to start injecting subjectivity (at least on the harbor) is fine.
Wood: “I still don’t know what we’re voting on yet.” Sam proposed going with the written ordinance. “Mr. Destin, I’m a little unsure” what you’re asking for.

Some debate over parliamentary procedure follows

October 26th, 2009, 8:23 pm by fsherman

And I’m completely unclear what the motion is.
Tom Weidenhamer: how long would a parking study take?
Kisela: 3 to 6 months.
Tom: Perhaps we could put in parking OR public housing? “I’d rather have an either/or … than turn around and make the whole thing subjective–that’s why we tried to get away from ‘is this compatible?’”
He’d suggest taking time to get a parking study, since the city hardly has developers rushing up right now.
Craig: We could tie affordable housing to the CIP list. Tom: It’s not in the CIP. Several people: It can be put in if council wishes. Tom: It’s not really a city function.

Bagby

October 26th, 2009, 8:19 pm by fsherman

He agrees that out of the four benefits, housing is one that is less important. He’d like a way to get some benefit for the people out of a 10 story building and he doesn’t see it in this ordinance–most of this is stuff developers would do anyway, as pointed out earlier.
“I know what I would like to see, I’m not sure anything that’s been proposed so far gets me there.” Trammell agrees.
Kisela: He’d expected a motion on parking studies and fees from Dewey–this is not the direction he’d expected.
Dewey: I could modify the substitute motion. Craig: Perhaps you should do it now, because it will make a lot of discussion irrelevant.
Sam Seevers: I agree with you on one part of this, you may not get that agreement if you change.
Dewey: The substitute motion (modified) is that on Tier 2B you will do one of the listed benefits and a negotiated benefit and that the negotiations could include a parking fee … I think.
Bagby Seconds, but sounds equally confused.
Dewey: “We could put it in the standards once we’ve done the appropriate research.” “The goal is not to complicate tier two so nobody can do it.”
Ashley (sounding gobsmacked): “We have some comments … it seems most of you agree with requiring items 2,3 and 4.” So, he suggests: Leave the housing fee to Tier Three, then require instead contributing to a capital-improvement project. That would give flexibility and could include parking once it’s in the plan.
Dewey: “I think that’s the cat we’re trying to skin.”
Kisela; “Mr. Grana likes to ‘upward delegate’ a lot.” Negotiations are very time-consuming and onerous. Picking a project will be more time-consuming. The affordable housing component was clear and simple, but once you get into negotiations it can take a year to 18 months to work out a benefit.
Dewey: It shouldn’t, but he had thought Ashley had a good answer. And he’s heard over and over from the public that the top Tier Two building should have council oversight.

ADVERTISEMENT 
ADVERTISEMENT 
powered by
google
Search
        Search: Web    Site