Tag Archives: Citizens For Justice

Columbia Police Draw Gun and Taunt Black Teens

The audio starts after a bit in both videos.

From the CFJ video

On March 7, 2015 Cezan “CJ” Stock and a group of friends were hanging
out in their neighborhood in Columbia, MO when they noticed a Columbia
Police Department patrol cruiser approach.

Sergeant Roger Schlude and Street Crimes Officers Chris Papineau were
in the area on a “Check Subject” when they parked and began observing
the teenagers. Upon spotting the officers, CJ and several other
teenagers began using their camera phones to record the officers.

Schlude responded by exiting his vehicle and pointing his service
weapon at CJ, while demanding he take his hand out of his pocket. The
teen complied but the weapon remained aimed at CJ while the two
debated the officer’s actions. Schlude repeatedly tells the teen to
“Walk on!”

CJ’s mother, Andrea Brookins, says her son is known for filming his
encounters with law enforcement to hold the police accountable for
their actions. She believes this has garnered ill-will with members of
CPD and leading to situation such as this. “These officers were trying
to intimidate my son from filming the police,” she said in an
interview with CFJ.

As the situation unfolded Officer Papineau engaged in a verbal
argument with CJ, threatening to “mop the floor” with the teen and
making fun of his weight, as well as that of a fellow teenager on the
scene.

Schlude claims that CJ had been arrested for concealing a firearm on a
previous occasion, leading him to fear CJ. Reports indicate the
firearm was located in the glove box of his mother’s vehicle, which CJ
was driving her vehicle at the time.

Andrea says the firearm belonged to her, stating she has a Second
Amendment Right to bear arms. “I have a right to defend myself and
they used that to arrest my son in retaliation for his filming the
police,” Brookins said. This gun case against CJ was later dismissed
by prosecutors.

Missouri Law specifically states that an individual has a right to
keep a firearm concealed in their vehicle, whether or no they have a
Conceal and Carry Permit: http://bit.ly/2b1EmIb

Brookins filed complaints against the officers for their actions.

Her complaint against Officer Papinuea for Discourteous,
Disrespectful, or Discriminatory Treatment of Any Member of the
Public, and Guidelines for Corrective Action were sustained. He
received a Written Warning.

Her complaint against Schlude for Excessive Force (Response to
Resistance) was marked as Exonerated and cleared of any wrong-doing.

Several months later, officers attempted to pull CJ over while he was
on lunch from his job. Based on this situation, CJ drove to his
mother’s house where he peacefully surrendered as Brookins filmed. “I
wanted to ensure his safety. He was scared and I could understand
why,” Brookins said.

As she filmed, Sergeant Schlude charged and shoved Brookins. Her video
of this situation can be seen here: http://bit.ly/2bk84Ls

Share

CPD Subject of Forfeiture Complaint

A complaint against the Columbia Police Department alleging that the department has violated state law was recently jointly filed filed with the City Clerk by Citizens For Justice and Americans For Forfeiture Reform. Citizens For Justice is a local police watchdog group know for filming encounters with law enforcement. Americans For Forfeiture Reform is a national group, founded in Columbia, MO, that works to expose civil asset forfeiture abuses and reform asset forfeiture laws.

From the complaint:

“The Columbia Police Department failed to submit the required annual report/audit detailing their use of the federal forfeiture system for the year of 2011, to the Missouri State Auditor (and likely the Missouri Department of Public Safety). This report was due January 31, 2012.

“The consequence for failing to file this report, as clearly stated in the referenced statute, is that the Columbia Police Department is ineligible to receive funding from the Missouri Department of Public Safety (MODPS).

“Although the MODPS has thus far failed to comply with my request for a record of all funds issued to the CPD for the years of 2011 and 2012, I can tell you from my past research that the liquor compliance checks initiative is being ran by CPD, using of [sic] funds allocated through the MODPS.

“Accepting funding from the MODPS for this, as well as other programs, while simultaneously failing to file these reports, means that the CPD is violating the statutes 2-fold.”

Update — A few weeks after filing the complaint, MODPS confirmed that no reports had been filed by the CPD and the CPD was actively using MODPS funds to facilitate four separate programs.

You can read the entire complaint with supporting documentation and statements from both CFJ and AFR here. If the embedded document is not big enough for your device, click the link at the top and you will be taken to a larger version of the PDF.

CFJ/AFR Complaint by Keep Columbia Free

The CPD, Boone County Prosecutor, and the Boone County Sheriff have all been in the news lately for asset forfeiture actions and questionable weapons seizures….

The CPD Seizes Money to Spend On Itself – SWAT Seizes Money and Buys New Tools

Local Man Fights To Have Property Seized By Boone County Sheriff After Charges Dropped

CPD and Prosecutors Hit With Lawsuit Alleging Illegal Gun Seizures

The illegal gun lawsuit has prompted attorney Stephen Wyse to post this message asking for other victims to come forward.

wyse

 

Add the CFJ/AFR complaint to this list. Will Chris Koster step in?

–Mark

Share

CPD Targets Critics

akinsq

 

The Columbia Police Department seems to have a habit of targeting its critics. Recently a strange and alarming document surfaced from the deepest reaches of the CPD offices. The document, a sort of wanted poster, bears the face of local activist and police watch-dog Matt Akins, founder of Citizens For Justice.

His website and Youtube channel together form an exhaustive database of information on our local police force. Matt and his small army of citizen journalist volumteers answer calls from concerned citizens and, with video camera in hand, keep an eye on the actions of the CPD.

Needless to say, Mr. Akins is not too popular with the local cops.

 

 

The following is from Matt Akins’s Facebook page:

          This poster was prominently displayed in several locations throughout the Columbia Police Department during the Fall of 2011 while a group of Shepard Boulevard Elementry School students were given a tour of the department.
          cfjweb.ssos.us was the original home of Citizens For Justice (now located at www.CFJComo.com). This site was never public, but had been being tracked by the CPD/CPOA(Columbia Police Officers’ Association) as they sent emails letting us know this (Scare tactic? Maybe).

          The arrest being referred to occurred in May of 2010 and was one of the primary reasons I started Citizens For Justice.

          I was LEGALLY carrying a concealed weapon on my person within the confines of my vehicle (as defined under Missouri’s Peaceable Journey Statute), but the arresting officer didn’t agree with me and went so far as to supplant evidence against me by loading a round into the chamber and reporting he had recovered it from me this way.
          My car was impounded, I was booked for unlawful use of a weapon, and had to hire an attorney for the 6 month legal battle that would ensue.

          After repeatedly asking for the footage of the arrest to show the officer engaging in misconduct, I was told that it either had been deleted, disappeared, or never existed AND MY CASE WAS DROPPED.

          I believe that makes this a closed record(and therefore a HUGE violation of my civil rights), but I’m not an attorney so I could be wrong.
          Either way, the poster was used to make me look like a wanted criminal to a bunch a elementry school kids and I couldn’t even get an answer as to who created it or put it up.

          Thanks a lot CPD!

This is not the first time the CPD has targeted a local critic. In 2010, in the wake of the infamous Kinloch Ct. SWAT raid and dog shooting, a local citizen was targeted by an officer for merely exercising his right to free speech. 

Local citizen Greg Williams attended a demonstration condemning the dangerous, bumbling raid and was immediately targeted by CPD Officer Robert Fox. Officer Fox ran background checks on the protesters, found that Williams had a juvenile record, and then released those records in the comment section of the Columbia Daily Tribune. To the credit of Chief Burton, Officer Fox was reprimanded for releasing the sealed juvenile records in a public forum.

Officer Fox escaped prosecution because he claimed that he received his information from a dispatcher who did not alert him to the fact that the records were sealed. 

From the Tribune:

          Fox is a member of the six-man SWAT unit that entered the southwest Columbia home of Jonathan Whitworth in February.

          Williams, with his pit bull, was protesting the death of a pit bull and injuries to another dog as a result of the raid.

          Fox responded to a previous posting that said, “Seeing the people of Columbia stand up to this totally unacceptable police brutality refreshes my pride in America.”

          “Hahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Fox responded. “The guy with the ‘stop the brutality’ sign has multiple convictions for assaulting people with guns!!! I’d like him to stop the brutality of humans!

          “Your case has never had any solid basis other than you didn’t like seeing what’s required to police Columbia and you want weed to be legal. The majority of the people in Columbia don’t care enough to comment, go to a meeting or protest at the post office. You’re all irrelevant. We need to move on.”

          A commenter later wrote back to Fox, “Greg Williams in the picture, can file a defamation of character and slander against you … so maybe a retraction should be in order.”

          Fox responded by posting, “It ain’t slander if it’s true. It is.”

More troubling than the release of juvenile records is the notion that police are openly investigating citizens for merely exercising their God-given right to free speech. Officer Fox looked into Greg Williams’s juvenile record in hopes of finding information that could be used for intimidation. The posters of Matt Akins that were prominently displayed by the CPD in areas frequented by civilian visitors indicate a clear plan to target Mr. Akins.

Shouldn’t our police be protecting the fundamental natural rights that are the underpinning of our free society? Shouldn’t our police be ensuring that our rights to free speech and to petition our government for the redress of grievances are protected? Instead it appears that at least some of our local police are determined to use their considerable power to violate these rights.

 

 

 

Share

The High Price of a Dirty Department

A few days ago at a local holiday party I was introduced to an area law enforcement officer, not an officer of the CPD. I was actually a bit surprised and somewhat flattered when she told me that she reads this blog. After a bit of casual conversation, this officer made the comment that the Columbia Police Department is “dirty — one of the dirtiest departments” she’s encountered in her many years working in law enforcement. After making this statement she made it clear that her comments were strictly off the record.

In fact, she was afraid of the repercussions that would come her way for making such a statement. The good-ol’-boy, fraternal, police union, us v. them atmosphere in law enforcement should be frightening to us all. There are good officers who cannot speak publicly about corruption for fear of losing their career of even their life. Even First Ward City Councilman Fred Schmidt expressed a fear of reprisal from the local police after making statements condemning a recent act of police brutality. (click HERE to skip to  3:10 in this video to hear what Fred has to say about his fear)

 

 



 

It is time that the citizens of Columbia realize the high costs of allowing this canker of cop corruption to continue to fester as it has for the last forty years. 

After then-Officer Rob Sanders’s brutal shoving of detainee Kenneth Baker, the city settled with Mr. Baker for a reported $250,000. But is this really all Mr. Baker received from the city? 

A source very close to the Baker camp told KCF that there is a gag order in place and the settlement was actually $750,000 along with an agreement to drop all pending charges against Baker, including his failure to pay child support which he will presumably now be able to pay with our tax dollars.

So, besides the obvious monetary costs, keeping a violent bully like Rob Sanders on the force for the past 18 years has not only cost we the taxpayers, three quarters of a million dollars, it has allowed a noted, dangerous miscreant, Kenneth Baker, to freely walk the streets among us instead of remaining behind bars where he obviously belongs. Columbia is a more dangerous place, in more ways than one, thanks to Rob Sanders and officers like him.

And Sanders, his wife, his ex-cop buddies, and the CPOA thugs have the gall to condemn Burton for firing Sanders and demand that Sanders be reinstated as an officer. If Sanders wants his job back, he should start by coughing up $750,000. I want my money back!

Sanders should have been fired years ago along with any other officer who thinks and acts like him. Let’s hope that any remaining officers who subscribe to the Sander school of police work have the moral wherewithal to change their ways or face immediate termination by Chief Burton. 

If you are interested in supporting Chief Burton in his battle to reform our police department against the will of the police unions, please sign this petition

 

Share

Petition in Support of Chief Burton

Read all about the issue HERE 

Click HERE to go to the online petition. 

 

 

ANYONE CAN SIGN. YOU NEED NOT BE A COLUMBIA RESIDENT.

Dear Mayor, City Council, and City Manager of Columbia, MO,

We, the undersigned, wish to express our support for Police Chief Ken Burton in his work to improve the Columbia Police Department. 
1. We agree with his decision to fire Rob Sanders.
2. We support his willingness to work with groups such as The Bias-free Columbia Coalition.
3. We sincerely hope that he will continue to serve as Columbia’s Chief of Police for the foreseeable future. 

Click HERE to sign the online petition

 

 

 

Share

AFR Guest Blog: Jonathan Whitworth’s Dismissed Civil Suit

Keep Columbia Free is happy to have a guest blogger in the house. Scott Alexander Meiner, a policy analyst at Americans For Forfeiture Reform, has penned a blog breaking down U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey’s recent ruling in the case stemming from Columbia’s infamous SWAT raid at the home of Jonathan and Brittany Whitworth. In his blog, Scott breaks down the problems with the ruling and the scourge that is “qualified immunity.” Enjoy…

BY SCOTT ALEXANDER MEINER, ON NOVEMBER 29TH, 2011

Last week, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey granted summary judgement to dismiss the civil rights suit (raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983of Jonathan Whitworth, Brittany Whitworth, and their son. The civil rights claim stems from a February 2010 Columbia, Missouri SWAT raid that went viral when police footage was obtained by the Columbia Tribune.

At issue in the motion for summary judgement was whether the police officers’ discretionary behavior was reasonable, in the context of the situation, and whether it violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)).

Such motions, under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are to be looked at in the most favorable light to the non-movant (CPD).

In reality, law enforcement is afforded such favorable light, via judicial imaginings of what might have been reasonable, that “qualified immunity provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”  Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986)

It is no surprise that Judge Laughrey was able to rationalize a context in which it might have been reasonable for an officer to kick Jonathan Whitworth in the head while he lay face down, unarmed, before a fully armed SWAT tactical unit.

“Thus, even if Hendrick indeed kicked Whitworth, a single kick to force swift compliance with an order, and to deter hesitation incompliance with future orders from a dangerous suspect, would be objectively reasonable in this context. It is also uncontested that Whitworth suffered no injury from this contact except pain.”  Whitworth v.  Bolinger

In the execution of the warrant, a paramilitary SWAT team entered the Whitworth’s family home. Police fired seven shots while in the Whitworth home. Both of the Whitworth family dogs were shot. One of the dogs was killed. The couple’s seven year old child was witness to the raid. Jonathan Whitworth was kicked in the head. Brittany Whitworth and her child were directed at gun point.  As a result of the the raid, the police were able to find some drug paraphernalia and a small amount of cannabis. The police, initially, charged the Whitworths with child endangerment.

“The Court agrees that ideally officers would execute search warrants without pointing a gun at women and children not suspected of committing a crime. On the other hand, where officers are aware that a dangerous suspect and two large dogs are on the property, a reasonable officer could, in the heat of the moment, rely on such tactics to prod individuals to move swiftly through a potentially dangerous situation. This is especially true, where shouting and gun-pointing occurred as Mrs. Whitworth and P.M. stepped over Mr.Whitworth–who was lying on the floor–and the danger of resistance by any of the Whitworths was arguably at its highest. In this context, the behavior alleged by the Whitworths did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. The SWAT officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.” Whitworth v.  Bolinger

This is entirely consistent with scores of cases wherein citizens were plainly wronged and yet can find no corrective, civil recourse.

In 2010, Radley Balko described the false arrest and failed civil suit of Brian Kelly. The ordeal is as instructive as it is scary.

“When Rogers returned from writing a ticket, he noticed Kelly’s camera. Rogers demanded Kelly turn the camera off and hand it over to him. Kelly complied.

Rogers then returned to his car and called John Birbeck, an assistant district attorney in Cumberland County. Rogers asked Birbeck if Kelly’s recording violated Pennsylvania’s wiretapping law. Birbeck incorrectly told him it did. Rogers then called in back-up officers and placed Kelly under arrest. During the arrest, Rogers “bumped” (the term Kelly used in his lawsuit) Kelly, causing a staple from a rugby injury to rupture, causing Kelly’s leg to bleed. Kelly spent the night (27 hours) in jail. He was eventually charged with a felony punishable by up to seven years in prison. Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed would later tell the Patriot-News that while he sympathized with Kelly not being aware that what he did was illegal, and that he might (graciously!) allow Kelly to plead to a misdemeanor, “Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense.”

Here’s the problem: Freed was the one who was ignorant of the law. So was Birbeck. And so was Rogers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that recording on-duty public officials is not a violation of the state’s wiretapping law because public officials have no legitimate expectation of privacy while they’re on the job. The order for Kelly to stop videotaping was illegal. So was Kelly’s arrest and his incarceration. Freed eventually dropped all charges.

Kelly filed a civil rights lawsuit against Rogers and the town of Carlisle. In May of last year, Federal District Court Judge Yvette Kane dismissed Kelly’s suit. The reason? As a police officer, Rogers is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In order to even get his case in front of a jury, Kelly has to show that Rogers (a) violated Kelly’s civil rights, and (b) the rights Rogers violated have been clearly established. Even if Kelly can meet those two burdens, he must also show that Roger’s actions in violating Kelly’s rights were unreasonable.

So it isn’t enough that the police are wrong about the law. They have to be very obviously wrong for you to collect any damages from a wrongful arrest.”

Kelly’s civil suit (Kelly v. Borough Of Carlisleclaimed that the arrest had violated his rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments. Upon dismissal by summary judgement, Kelly appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Kelly’s First Amendment claim was rejected. All claims against the Borough of Carlisle were rejected. The summary judgement on Kelly’s Fourth Amendment claim was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Third Circuit’s analysis. The remand instructed,

“that police officer who relies in good faith on a prosecutor’s legal opinion that the arrest is warranted under the law is presumptively entitled to qualified immunity from Fourth Amendment claims premised on a lack of probable cause. That reliance must itself be objectively reasonable, however, because “a wave of the prosecutor’s wand cannot magically transform an unreasonable probable cause determination into a reasonable one.”  Accordingly, a plaintiff may rebut this presumption by showing that, under all the factual and legal circumstances surrounding the arrest, a reasonable officer would not have relied on the prosecutor’s advice.”

In analyzing the holding, Harvard Law Review noted,

“The Third Circuit had previously allocated the burdens of production reasonably: once the plaintiff established a prima facie case of wrongful arrest, the court required the police officer defendant to show probable cause, and it required the defendant to prove his or her qualified immunity defense. This arrangement accommodated the plaintiff’s limited right to pretrial discovery and the officer’s information advantage regarding the plaintiff’s arrest. The court’s opinion in Kelly will upset this sensible allocation in cases in which the police officer has consulted with a prosecutor: the plaintiff will now have the burden of showing that the officer was objectively unreasonable in following the advice. Kelly is representative of the plaintiffs on whom this burden will fall. He was neither committing nor about to commit a crime. A police officer nonetheless arrested him, and he went to jail. Because the arrest was made without probable cause, it violated Kelly’s Fourth Amendment right. Moreover, the law was clearly established in the relevant jurisdiction that the officer’s basis for arresting Kelly did not constitute probable cause. Thus, a reasonable officer would have known that he was violating Kelly’s rights. Yet, solely because a prosecutor confirmed the police officer’s inaccurate interpretation of the law, Kelly (and similarly situated civil rights plaintiffs) will now be required to produce evidence to rebut the judicially mandated inference that the police officer’s violation of his clearly established constitutional right was objectively reasonable. This presumption is unlikely to increase legal consultation; instead, it will allow courts to relieve law enforcement officers of their responsibility to exercise independent professional judgment and will decrease the likelihood that constitutional violations will be redressed.”

Qualified immunity has become so expansive that it frequently fails to correct these constitutional violations.

Simultaneously, law enforcement is increasingly funded by separate revenue streams that are not directly answerable to local voter intent.  Big money is coming in from asset forfeitures and federal law enforcement grants. Each dollar acquired outside of the legislative appropriation model is one less piece of control that the citizenry wield. The funds are not enough to ignore the citizenry, but we do see prioritization that is substantially at odds with voter intent.

The Whitworth warrant was predicated on unnamed sources that claimed Jonathan Whitworth was a major cannabis dealer. That was more than five years after Columbia, Missouri passed a proposition to make the enforcement of cannabis the lowest priority by law enforcement. The measure passed by a 61% to 39% vote.

An estimated 130-150 SWAT raids occur everyday in the United States. That is some 40,000-50,000 paramilitary operations every year.

We are simultaneously escalating domestic paramilitary activity, increasing immunity from prosecution, and ceding budgetary control.

Share

Support for Chief Burton

 ANYONE CAN SIGN THE PETITION. YOU NEED NOT BE A COLUMBIA RESIDENT TO SIGN THE PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE CHIEF.

Sign the petition in support of Chief Burton HERE

Anyone who follows the local Columbia media knows that Chief Burton has been under fire as of late. He has never been popular among the old guard, rank and file officers, but lately the local public sector police labor union, the Columbia Police Officers Association (CPOA), a national police labor union, the Fraternal Order of Police, and a group centered around a fired, former CPD Officer, Rob Sanders, and his former police dog Fano have all been on the attack.

 

Keep Columbia Free publicly endorses Chief Burton’s continued vigilance combating racial bias in his department and wholeheartedly agrees with his decision to fire Rob Sanders.

The proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and unleashed a firestorm of police union ire was the firing of Rob Sanders. Sanders was fired for using excessive force against an inmate in a holding cell. Sanders shoved the captive man against a wall hard enough to fracture a vertebrae.

As is customary in such “dog and pony” CPD investigations, the Internal Affairs Department ruled in favor of Officer Sanders, even after he and his fellow officers were heard laughing about the incident. When Chief Burton reviewed the case, he overruled the findings of the Internal Affairs department, promptly and rightly firing Officer Sanders.

The city went on to deny Sanders the opportunity to purchase the police dog, Fano, further raising the ire of his supporters in the department.

Not surprisingly, due to its long history condoning excessive force and brutality at the hands of the Columbia Police, the CPOA has come to the aid of Sanders. The vicious attacks of the CPOA know no bounds.  CPOA Executive Director Ashley Cuttle even went so far as to make the claim to a Tribune reporter that Chief Burton has called officers and their families racists during meetings with The Bias Free Columbia Coalition. I was was in attendance at the meeting in question and sat less than 10 feet away from Chief Burton. The Chief said nothing of the sort. He simply and rightly said that nearly everyone carries some sort of racial bias and that his officers are human. Ashley Cuttle should be sued for using her status as CPOA Executive Director and union mouthpiece to float such glaring and damaging lies to the local media.

It is the CPOA that represents everything that is wrong in the Columbia Police Department. The CPOA is a rabid labor union that is more concerned with preserving officer pensions than protecting the civil rights of the very citizenry whom the officers purport to serve and protect. The CPOA cements the perverse solidarity that separates the the police from the community and turns otherwise good cops into accessories to the crimes of the few truly bad cops. Ratting on a bad CPOA member cop would carry a harsher punishment than ratting on a gang member in the streets. Chief Burton is now paying the price for daring to clean up a department that has struggled with integrity for many years.

And the attacks keep coming. Even the recently retired CPD Officer Jeff Westbrook penned an editorial in the Tribune denouncing Chief Burton. Westbrook was the detective who refused to allow detained criminal suspect Nicole Palmer to speak to her attorney despite several requests to do so. At 1:50 and 5:40 in the following video you can see Officer Jeff Westbrook in action, grinding our beloved Bill of Rights into the dirt with the heel of his jackboot, as he denies council to a prisoner. If this is the caliber of officer (or former officer) calling for Burton’s head, Burton must be doing something right.

 

 

Now these forces who are calling for the reinstatement of Rob Sanders have dredged up a 30+ year-old accusation of excessive force leveled against Chief Burton when he was a Dallas police officer. Thanks to the level-headed thinking of our freshman City Manager, Mike Matthes, this silly and ultimately dirty campaign will go nowhere.

Although we have not always agreed with Chief Burton, Keep Columbia Free publicly endorses Chief Burton’s continued vigilance combating racial bias in his department and wholeheartedly agree with his decision to fire Rob Sanders. Chief Burton is a welcome improvement when compared to the leadership the CPD has seen over the past 30 years. The so-called low morale in the department is merely a symptom of the decay left from the past years of poor management. It hurts to clean an infected wound. 

One thing has been made clear by these recent and ongoing events. Civilian oversight of our dysfunctional police department is more important than ever. Our Citizens Police Review Board needs to be given teeth and allowed to do more than merely make suggestions.  Please see a recent memorandum Keep Columbia Free submitted to the City Council and the CPRB. 

 

For another take on the subject, see  local policy analyst Eapen Thampy’s blog, Ducks and Economics.

 

Mark Flakne

 

 

Share