Tony
Could you take the lead on the questions you ask in this thread and
share your information first?
If you do, I'll do the same (or you could just google me - they know
everything about me already).
Maybe everyone else will see how important and relevant it is to this
discussion.
Looking forward to learning more about your personal life!
Regards,
John Ellingsworth
Anthony West wrote:
What you just wrote is untrue, Frank.
I addressed the challenge of sitting on a committee and arriving at a
committee's decisions. I have sat on many committees; how many have you
sat on?
Anyone who reads the dialog you copied below will see I did not "equate"
meeting attendees with liars, bla bla.... That's all your own angry,
careless rhetoric. The last tine we interacted on line, you were telling
the on-line community you were suffering from the illness of a friend in
Atlanta. I respected that.
I too have faced many health challenges in the past 12 months. Did I beg
public forgiveness for my manners on account of them? Pity is a one-way
street for you, it seems.
Angry, dishonest rhetoric (neighborhood "fight talk") is the central
purpose of UC-list these days. Personally, it sickens me. I am in the
political business, so I am familiar with this pathology. I deal with it
for a living ... but I don't want to come home at the end of the day and
deal with it some more.
What do you do for a living, by the way, Frank? Where do you live, and
how do you afford to live there? Can you please tell the neighborhood
exactly who you are? You are a frequent angry critic of how your
neighbors manage their properties and their public spaces; yet we know
strangely little about you. What's the scoop? How much do you pay to
your landlord for the environment you think this proposed hotel would
disrupt? If information about the hotel is rightfully public, isn't
information about you rightfully public as well? Tell us who you are and
where you are.
-- Tony West
Frank wrote:
You are equating people who chose to attend the meeting with shameless
liars/ignorami and those on the committee with people who struggle to
tell the truth in public/experts? That's preposterous. People who
learn zoning law don't necessarily speak truthfully. Where did you get
that idea? There is no connection. Why would you equate them?
Everyone who attended the meeting "contributed" simply by attending.
The committee wanted public input and they got it. As I said before,
not every interested party can be accommodated on a board or
committee. How dare you accuse everyone who isn't on a committee of
laziness? You're saying the public input has no meaning because the
public didn't bother learning zoning law. If that's so, why bother
asking for it?
Your reasoning is just silly.
Frank
On Feb 14, 2008, at 08:49 PM, Anthony West wrote:
Frank,
As a simple member of both SHCA and FoCP (but an officer of neither),
I can tell you that any member of either body who wants to serve on a
committee like the Zoning Committee now in the spotlight, has only to
request it. It's much easier than getting a US passport or voting in
the April primary. It is participatory democracy at its purest. Let
me be blunt: anybody who doesn't sit on the SHCA Zoning Committee is
just too lazy to do so.
Why, then, should neighborhood decisions be decided by people who
don't contribute rather than by those who do contribute?
That doesn't equate with "participatory democracy at its finest".
Every form of government can make wrong decisions. If the US Congress
can blow any given assignment; so can SHCA. In this case, criticize
the decision; don't criticize the "process."
My point is that "people who actually went to the meeting" are not
the same as "people who actually learned zoning law, and decided to
speak honestly to their neighbors." The word of a willful ignoramus
should not bear equal weight with the word of an expert. The word of
a shameless liar should not bear equal weight with the word of a
person who struggles to tell the the truth in public, regardless of
personal cost.
Do we disagree on these two points, Frank?
-- Tony West
Frank wrote:
Yes, we disagree.
You are equating people who chose to attend the meeting with shameless
liars/ignorami and those on the committee with people who struggle to
tell the truth in public/experts? That's preposterous. People who
learn zoning law don't necessarily speak truthfully. Where did you get
that idea? There is no connection. Why would you equate them?
Everyone who attended the meeting "contributed" simply by attending.
The committee wanted public input and they got it. As I said before,
not every interested party can be accommodated on a board or
committee. How dare you accuse everyone who isn't on a committee of
laziness? You're saying the public input has no meaning because the
public didn't bother learning zoning law. If that's so, why bother
asking for it?
Your reasoning is just silly.
Frank
On Feb 14, 2008, at 08:49 PM, Anthony West wrote:
Frank,
As a simple member of both SHCA and FoCP (but an officer of neither),
I can tell you that any member of either body who wants to serve on a
committee like the Zoning Committee now in the spotlight, has only to
request it. It's much easier than getting a US passport or voting in
the April primary. It is participatory democracy at its purest. Let
me be blunt: anybody who doesn't sit on the SHCA Zoning Committee is
just too lazy to do so.
Why, then, should neighborhood decisions be decided by people who
don't contribute rather than by those who do contribute?
That doesn't equate with "participatory democracy at its finest".
Every form of government can make wrong decisions. If the US Congress
can blow any given assignment; so can SHCA. In this case, criticize
the decision; don't criticize the "process."
My point is that "people who actually went to the meeting" are not
the same as "people who actually learned zoning law, and decided to
speak honestly to their neighbors." The word of a willful ignoramus
should not bear equal weight with the word of an expert. The word of
a shameless liar should not bear equal weight with the word of a
person who struggles to tell the the truth in public, regardless of
personal cost.
Do we disagree on these two points, Frank?
-- Tony West
Frank wrote:
The fact is that not everyone who has an opinion on or is affected
by any given project can be accommodated with a place on a board or
committee. Meetings like the one last night are one of the very few
places where some members of the community can actually be heard. We
took advantage of it. What exactly is the problem with that? Is this
not part of the public process? I would also argue that discussion
on a community listserv is also part of the public process.
Secondly, the people who have been writing about this process are,
for the most part, the people who actually went to the meeting last
night and participated in the process.
What is your point?
Frank
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
