Tag Archives: opus development

Keep Columbia Free Joins Coalition to Recall Chadwick — Richards Will Not Run

Ginny Chadwick

Ginny Chadwick

Two local groups, CoMo Council Watch and Keep Columbia Free, have joined forces with local cannabis law reformers to recall Councilperson Ginny Chadwick. More groups are likely to join the effort soon.

Columbia advocates for cannabis legalization, Aaron Malin, Eapen Thampy, and Duell Lauderdale, started the recall effort in response to Chadwick’s reversal of her public campaign promise to support Councilperson Barbara Hoppe’s proposed cannabis cultivation ordinance. Her vote was the last in a long string of outright betrayals since being sworn into office only six months ago. It was the straw, or perhaps the leaf, that broke the proverbial camel’s back.

Even Councilperson Barb Hoppe was confounded by Chadwick’s dishonesty.

“I think we felt misled… It’s hard to tell what she really thinks. She’ll say she’s for something and then vote against it.” — Councilperson Barb Hoppe on Chadwick’s cannabis vote

Aaron Malin

Aaron Malin

The recall announcement made by the pro-cannabis crowd was simply the first. A newly formed organization of First Ward voters calling themselves CoMo Council Watch had their own recall petition in the works which listed many of the same grievances, chief among them being Chadwick’s less-than-transparent slight of hand in her dealings with the Opus student housing project.

Barbara Hoppe

Barbara Hoppe

 

I was at the coalition meeting along with several of the Keep Columbia Free faithful. This writer has chronicled Councilwoman Chadwick’s flagrant misdeeds for several months and all in the room were in agreement that she had amassed a laundry list of recall-worthy actions. Besides her 180 on her cannabis reform campaign promise and her good ol’ boy relationship with Opus, Chadwick has also proposed an overtly racist plan to ban alcohol in Douglass Park and is now pushing to change the legal age for tobacco purchase to 21 and include e-cigs in Columbia’s smoking ban. And she doesn’t give a damn what anyone has to say about it, going so far as to scrub constituent comments from her official Facebook page, even blocking some users. 

Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy

The folks from the Bistate Regional Advocates for Vaping Education (BRAVE) have expressed great dismay over Chadwick targeting e-cigs and will hopefully officially endorse the recall effort soon.

There is little doubt that Chadwick has sided with the establishment “powers that be” in Columbia. Even the great establishment propagandist, Tribune Publisher Hank Waters, has jumped to her aid with his barrels of ink and an overtly erroneous editorial in which he attempts to pigeonhole the recall effort as a “small group of disappointed supporters of looser marijuana restrictions.” Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Even his own newspaper reported the facts. Apparently, Ol’ Hank doesn’t read his own publication.

The editorial prompted this apropos response from local liberty activist Spencer Pearson…

HA! This Op-Ed from Hank Waters about the ‪#‎RecallChadwick‬ movement is outrageously false. It must be nice to own a newspaper and tell voters in other wards what to do without any real knowledge of the movement you’re writing about.

The “small group” of people who are members of the Recall First Ward Councilperson Ginny Chadwick page already outnumber Chadwick’s public like page! And the grievances First Ward voters have go far beyond her broken campaign promise to support decriminalizing cannabis cultivation.

Waters concludes the piece with a Confucius quote: “The real fault is to have faults and not try to mend them.” When Chadwick publicly stated she didn’t have to make a case to a group of angry constituents, THAT was the deciding point of the recall. She has flat-out refused to address the people who elected her, as is her job. Perhaps Mr. Waters should show this Confucius quote to Ginny Chadwick instead of patronizing First Ward voters by telling so many of them their efforts are “without merit and should be ignored.” Or perhaps he is just projecting

But who will replace Chadwick?

mitch

Mitch Richards

There are a few names being tossed around, but those discussions have been kept secret so far. The First Ward wants to make sure that they don’t get fooled again, hoodwinked by more snake oil, ending up worse off than before. There is little doubt that the determined First Ward voters will produce a fully-vetted and qualified candidate. Enough is enough. After a decade of poor representation from the likes of Paul Sturtz, Fred Schmidt, and now Ginny Chadwick, the ward is ripe for real reform and meaningful action. But who will it be?

One name that has been mentioned is former First Ward candidate Mitch Richards who lost to Fred Schmidt in 2011. I asked Richards if he might run to replace Chadwick should the recall effort prove successful.

“Absolutely not! I have no intention to run for Council at this time nor in the near future.

That said, I do support the recall effort. Councilperson Chadwick has advocated an overtly paternalist set of policies since taking office. She arrogantly singled out Columbia’s African-American community as being unfit to consume alcohol in Douglass Park only to change course and try to ban alcohol everywhere in hopes of countering the justifiable cries of racial insensitivity the initial proposal faced. She wants to include e-cigs in Columbia’s smoking ban despite the fact that these devices provide a somewhat safer alternative than smoking for tobacco users and now she wants to tell young adults that while they can vote, pay taxes, and serve in war, they cannot be trusted to buy tobacco products. Her secretive work on the Opus project ran counter to the wishes of her constituency and now she’s made a 180 degree turn on the marijuana cultivation ordinance — an ordinance to which she pledged support during her campaign. Campaign promises should be sacred. The First Ward needs to send a strong message to current and future leadership that these types of fundamental betrayals will not be tolerated.”

These strong words from Richards echo the popular sentiment across the First Ward. There is little doubt that this recall effort will produce plenty of signatures in a very short time.

Share

Ginny Chadwick’s Sexism Card

Ginny Chadwick’s Sexism Card
by Melissa C. Sharp

chadwick sexism

Sexism happens.

As a woman, I can give first-hand examples of sexism from my own life. Female politicians and celebrities are scrutinized in ways which males are not. However, because women are sometimes unfairly targeted and derided in public spheres it is all the more important to use caution before whipping out the “sexism” card. There must be an element of either stereotyping, discrimination or prejudice directed at a person because of her sex for the remarks to qualify as sexism. Otherwise, it’s just criticism.

This is why, as a politically-active woman, I approach the recent statement from Councilperson Ginny Chadwick with chagrin. First of all, it should be noted from her quotation, she pulls out the sexism card, but fails to give any specifics about the incident(s) she is referring too. It makes me wonder if she just wants to play on people’s emotions. And while it’s admirable to encourage women as leaders, I feel like her comments are designed capture support for her instead of for the idea of female leadership.

There is no room in public office for vague accusations, particularly not if those accusations are plied to garner support for leadership or policies that are deeply unpopular. Making false accusations is serious and depending on the allegations, can be criminal. This is the reason why public officials are sworn into office promising honesty in the performance of their duties.

Anyone remember Ashley Todd? She was the GOP volunteer for presidential candidate John McCain, who falsely claimed she was robbed and assaulted by a Barack Obama supporter. She was charged with filing a false police report and sentenced to probation when her claims were revealed as hoaxes. But the real damage inflicted by Todd’s claims have nothing to do with how she was personally punished (although, I’m sure she still has to live with the social repercussions to this day). The lasting damage from her false accusations is how it gave ammunition to those who wished to minimize the very real and common dangers women face from assault. It also tarnished the Republican party’s reputation when a tight presidential election was only a month away.

If Chadwick is making a false statement about sexism she’s encountered while in office, then she is employing the use of a “red herring.” This claim is designed to take attention away from some very important questions about politics in Columbia. Especially, the kind of policies Chadwick is promoting.

Why is Chadwick trying to gather support for a local ordinance to ban smoking by 18-21 year-olds when it’s unlikely to reduce young adults’ access to cigarettes?

Furthermore, why will the University of Missouri be exempt from it?

After all, isn’t the University the reason why Columbia has such a large 18-21 year old population?

What’s the point of this piecemeal ordinance, especially since smoking is already banned inside businesses?

Chadwick was elected in April of this year. Since then, as First Ward’s councilperson, she has come out in favor of the controversial downtown development by the Opus Group, a ban on alcohol in Douglas Park, and a ban on cigarette sales to anyone under the age of 21. So in other words, an ordinance which favors more ill-conceived development at the expense of local taxpayers and two different bans which would violate adult citizens’ rights to freedom of choice.

If Chadwick wants to represent the interests of the First Ward, perhaps she should study the playbook of Democratic Senator Maria Chapelle-Nadal. When protests erupted in Ferguson, Missouri, Nadal joined with her protesting constituents. The senator is fiery and controversial, but there is no question she is working to represent the values of the people who live in her district.
The truth is, there’s no need to attack Councilperson Ginny Chadwick because she is a woman. Her record speaks for itself.

Melissa C. Sharp serves as the Keep Columbia Free Director of Community Outreach and is a longtime, active member of the organization.

Share

Chadwick’s Ninny Pulpit

“Ginny State + Nanny State = Ninny State,” wrote one Facebook user upon learning of Councilwoman Ginny Chadwick’s latest proposal. At the most recent council meeting, Ms. Chadwick started the ball rolling toward an ordinance that would change the legal age for the purchase of tobacco from 18 to 21 and also place tighter restrictions on e-cigarettes within the city limits of Columbia.

Ginny Chadwick

Ginny Chadwick

Her latest proposal comes fresh on the heels of her astoundingly racist and seemingly defunct push to ban alcohol consumption in Douglass Park, a popular gathering place for Columbia’s African-American community. Couple these two overtly overprotective prohibition propositions with her unwavering support of the Opus student housing development and her willingness to completely ignore her constituency on all issues and Ms. Chadwick is a contender for Columbia’s most hated councilperson. There have even been rumblings of recall on social media.

There is, however, one constituent to whom Ms. Chadwick will lend the royal ear. School Board Member Jonathan Sessions, the young entrepreneur and politician rumored to be a Democrat favorite for state office, has taken credit for proposing the new tobacco age restrictions and, according to city insiders, was the man behind the original plan to ban alcohol in Douglass Park when it was first proposed by Chadwick’s predecessor Fred Schmidt.

Jonathan Sessions

Jonathan Sessions

So, what’s so wrong with changing the legal age for purchasing tobacco from 18 to 21?

In a town the size of Columbia — i.e. not very big — this change would likely move tobacco sales to just outside the city limits. Unlike the few suburban cities that have made the change, Columbia’s outskirts are relatively under-developed and ripe for a burgeoning tobacco trade. In Columbia, migration of the 18 to 21 tobacco trade is inevitable.

Speaking of suburban cities that have made the change, Ms. Chadwick touted the successes seen in Needham, Massachusetts. The problem is, Needham is  the ONLY city where the change has been made and any success has been seen. The leading organization behind this push, Preventing Tobacco Addiction Foundation, on their website Tobacco21.org, lists only Needham, MA while offering no other evidence regarding tobacco and age limitations. The rest of the evidence is loosely extrapolated from data based on alcohol, a completely different and unrelated drug. And let’s not forget, Columbia is not a densely populated suburb of Boston. Columbia is a small, unique, and independent Midwestern city with a large, transient student population between the ages of 18 and 21. Columbia is the apple to Needham’s orange.

And, there is really no reason to make the change since smoking is already trending down. Read the CDC report HERE. 

Statistics aside, the philosophical problems with the proposal are almost too many to list — but I’ll give it a shot…

Eighteen is the universally accepted, legal age of adulthood in the developed world. It’s the age at which we allow our men and women to join the military so we can send them across the globe to kill and die on our behalf. It is the age that we force all young men to register for the Selective Service so that our government can force them to join the military to kill and die on our behalf (or at least on behalf of the corporatists who run our government). We’ll ask and/or force these adults to kill and die, but Ginny Chadwick thinks that they can’t be trusted to buy cigarettes.

People between the ages of 18 and 21 can choose to have sex with another consenting adult of any age. People under age 21 can even have children and we allow them to be responsible for the health of these children, but Ginny Chadwick thinks these same people cannot be trusted to make their own health decisions regarding tobacco.

People under 21 are allowed to work in Columbia restaurants an be certified by the Health Department to handle food. Ginny Chadwick thinks that these people are a danger to themselves and must be stopped from buying cigarettes, yet they are trusted with the health of restaurant patrons.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates how many people between the ages of 18 and 21 are employed. Take a look at the healthcare and social services statistics for under 21 employees. Wow! We trust these young adults to work in these industries, but Ginny Chadwick doesn’t trust them to buy cigarettes. What’s next? Will she outlaw babysitting for anyone under 21?

And, let’s not forget that 18 is the voting age. We trust 18-year-olds to help choose our leaders, yet Ginny Chadwick doesn’t trust these same citizens to make their own decisions regarding tobacco.

What is Chadwick’s Game?

There has been a great deal of speculation, some rather well-educated speculation, regarding what might be driving Ms. Chadwick’s ninny-nanny behavior. Some have suggested that she merely enjoys all forms of attention, both good and bad. Some have suggested that her belief that she is more intelligent than everyone around her has morphed into some sort of frightening, yet common, elected narcissism. Some have suggested that she is using her elected position as a résumé builder for a future career in the public health field. What is clear is that in spite of her tortured campaign slogan, “The key to the city is the voice of the people,” Ms. Chadwick has completely ignored her constituency, the very citizens she was elected to represent.

Comments posted to her Facebook page, a page which she floods with anti-smoking propaganda, even posting updates during Council meetings, go unacknowledged.

vernon to chad

When she does take the time to answer a constituent, her answer is best described as a ‘non-answer.’ Ms. Chadwick is pursuing a master’s degree in Public Health and Strategic Communication. Here is an example of a strategic non-answer that will curl the hair of staunch grammarians. Did I mention that she studies in the Missouri School of Journalism?

chad qStrategic communication indeed.

When listening to Ms. Chadwick discuss the Opus student housing agreement, it became clear that she was part of “The City” and not part of the First Ward. She often projected a tone of us (The City) vs. them (the people). During an interview on Steve Spellman’s Mid-Missouri Freedom Forum on KOPN she often referred to the City as “we” and called Mayor McDavid “Bob” and City Manager Matthes “Mike” as if they were old friends. She seemed to relish her insider roll, hobnobbing with Opus attorneys and high-ranking bureaucrats.

In the footnote on page 6 of the lawsuit filed by the anti-Opus petitioners, it is noted that Ms. Chadwick seemed to be working with Opus while ignoring her constituents by passing information from the City Manager to one but not the other.

chad law

Click HERE for a news report on her Opus press conference that further demonstrates the us vs. them mentality she holds. She literally thinks she needs to educate her ignorant constituents.

But really, for the narcissist in a seat of power, isn’t it all about “me” and the attention “me” gets? Take this Facebook exchange for instance. Note how Ms. Chadwick talks about her smoking age restriction and how it is an issue that is important to her, not to her constituency. The comment from her Facebook comrade is also quite telling as the friend and citizen pleads with her benevolent overlord to stop the unwashed poor from stinking up the town with their smoking. This is the very arrogance that has come to characterize Ginny Chadwick’s policy making. Birds of a feather flock together.

chad q1

Besides the ego-boosting attention she is receiving, what’s in it for Ms. Chadwick? For one, she’s seeking a degree, and one would assume a career, in the Public Health field. Is this all just a means for Ms. Chadwick to bolster her professional résumé? Why else would she undertake such unpopular crusades while ignoring more pressing issues important to her constituents like gun violence and crumbling infrastructure?

Perhaps she has her sites set on higher office. She does seem to be taking her marching orders from the local establishment Democrat up-and-comer Jonathan Sessions. Is G-Chad just trying to please J-Sesh? He does seem to be the anointed one among local, big-money Dems like Chris Kelly and John Wright. jsesh 1

Who knows what her angle is? Maybe it’s all of the above. What’s clear is that in less than six months from taking her oath of office, Ginny Chadwick has made three extremely unpopular and very public displays of poor political judgement. Sadly, this is par for the course with First Ward representation. It is high time that this community figure out how to get good, trustworthy candidates to run for local office. Many promising candidates cannot afford to donate the time (yes the Council receives a small salary that won’t even cover the gas it takes to drive to the top of a parking garage) required to serve adequately, leaving the job to those with residual or retirement incomes. It is likely time to pay our Council a meaningful salary like our county officials receive. Sadly, it also takes money to be elected. It is time for people to pool their resources and support good candidates. If a First Ward recall were to be undertaken, there is little doubt that the 200 or so signatures could be gathered in only a few days. The real question is — who will take Ms. Chadwick’s place?

Share

Homeowners Should Sue The City Of Columbia for Damages

The widely unpopular Opus student housing development in Downtown Columbia has ruffled myriad feathers for myriad reasons. The City bureaucracy headed by City Manager Mike Matthes and his assistant Tony St. Romaine first claimed that Downtown infrastructure could not handle one more toilet. They used this infrastructure emergency in an effort to justify a hurried TIF corporate welfare plan. Once the TIF plan was defeated, the City then flip-flopped and approved hundreds of new toilets in the form of both large student housing projects and upscale urban flats for the well-paid young professional. Despite the shenanigans on the part of city leaders and bureaucrats, experts agree that Downtown electric and sewer infrastructure is already maxed out.

Opponents of Downtown development are especially rankled at the notion of student housing. They claim that the University will fail to fill the beds in years to come and the buildings will become a ghetto, despite the fact that they are located within two blocks of the Mizzou campus and only six or seven blocks from the other two campuses. They argue that these developments fly in the face of local central planning schemes laid out in the past. They argue that citizens simply don’t want student housing in Downtown Columbia. They argue that the tall buildings will be unsightly. They argue that there was not enough public input during the approval process. They argue that downtown will be overrun with students and lose its wider appeal.

While any or all of their complaints may be true, there stands one other complaint against downtown development that seems to hold water — pun intended. The fact is our city’s sewer and stormwater infrastructure is already overburdened. It seems that real damages have resulted from the City’s failure to follow precedent and provide these basic services. At least this is the only argument that might pass muster for someone who believes in the sanctity of Natural Rights and the Common Law. Remember, liability for damage one does to an adjacent property is nothing new and was a feature of the Common Law in the United Kingdom and the early United States.

Several homeowners in the First Ward with homes in the Flat Branch Watershed have found themselves on the receiving end of some rather nasty consequences of overdevelopment. When it rains more than an inch, lawns and gardens are washed away by stormwater overflows that rush like rivers across private property. Many homeowners enjoy basements flooded by both stormwater and raw sewage. Homeowners have even reported cleaning toilet paper from their basement floors after a hard rain. Property values must suffer.

During heavy rainfall sewers also overflow manholes and wastewater escapes into the Flat Branch Watershed and eventually into the surrounding ecosystem, spreading poison far and wide. Water, we must remember, is a transient resource. When water is poisoned at point A, the poison eventually travels to point B. In almost every case, one simply cannot poison one’s own groundwater without poisoning one’s neighbor’s groundwater. When sewage overflows into the Flat Branch Watershed, everyone in the area is a victim.

It is time for First Ward homeowners whose private property has been harmed by the City’s mismanagement of funds and failure to provide adequate infrastructure to band together and file a lawsuit naming the City and its leaders as defendants liable for damages. Perhaps Josh Oxenhandler, a local attorney who has represented those opposed to student housing, would take the case for free or on a contingency. Considering the wider harm caused by sewage overflow into the local watershed, perhaps a wider cross section of local citizens might have standing as plaintiffs.

One thing is for sure, citizens pleading with the City to do something reasonable does not work. Petitioners standing in line to sign names on a sheet of paper is futile. The only remedy is a lawsuit.

When Opus threatened a lawsuit, the City snapped into compliance with the Opus agreement. Perhaps they were simply using the lawsuit as an excuse to do what they had planned all along. It will be interesting to see if the City responds in the same way to a multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by citizens.

 

Share

Mayor McDavid Throws a Tantrum

If you have followed the happenings at City Hall you are surely familiar with the student housing vs. downtown infrastructure fight that is taking place.

In a nutshell, some big, out-of-town developers sought approval to build some large apartment buildings geared toward students in Downtown Columbia. Initially our City Manager, Mike Matthes, declared that the existing sewer and electrical infrastructure was at maximum capacity and without the corporate welfare of TIF, development would stop. He told us there was no “Plan B.” The TIF plan was rejected and magically, only days later, Matthes announced “Plan B” and a couple of large developments were whisked quickly through the approval process with little chance for public input.

Enter Jeremy Root and the Repeal 6214 group who claimed that the City had failed to follow due process, rushing the projects to approval without the opportunity for the public input required by the City Charter and precedent. They also claimed that the private student housing developments will be poorly built and would soon turn into Section 8 slums. Root and company drew up a petition seeking to overturn the ordinance that approved the new buildings and quickly gathered more than enough legitimate signatures.

Fearing that their development would be stopped by the proponents of central planning, Opus, the group behind one of the large developments, began boisterous saber-rattling with threats of a multi-million dollar lawsuit aimed at the City. Coupled with the fact that Repeal 6214, the group charging that the City failed to follow the letter of the law during the approval process, themselves failed to include the full ordinance in their petition as required by the City Charter , we’ve got ourselves a real mess.

If we can accept the notion that it’s the City’s job to build basic infrastructure, which seems to be the model we are working with in Columbia, then the City should do just that. Leave the rest alone. If the idiots who run our city are put in charge of regulating the real estate market, nothing good can come of it. It’s the City’s fault that basements are flooding, not the developers. If the City bureaucrats and elected officials choose to do the bidding of developers — blame the City.

Mayor Bob McDavid

Mayor Bob McDavid

When it comes to childish comments, Mayor McDavid’s statement to the media regarding the Opus threat of litigation really takes the cake. In response to the threat, Mcdavid said:

“There is the cost of litigation, and it’s really, really going to irritate me if we’re hiring attorneys to manage the expense of this lawsuit instead of police officers and firefighters”

Really, Bob? You’re throwing a temper tantrum? You’re really threatening to cut public safety dollars if the city is sued by a developer? Your failed leadership is really to blame for this mess and now you’re trying to steer the ship of public opinion with this childish threat? Really?

How about we take money from your silly FastCat pet project? How about we stop funding the renovation of the Blind Boone home? How about we stop building giant parking garages that would be empty except that the City leases spots to its own departments? How about we not pay for the CID’s silly Gateway project? How about we not buy homeless shelters? How about we prioritize the way this City spends tax dollars by fully funding basic sewer and electric infrastructure and our police and fire departments before we fund anything else?

 

 

Share

Picking Winners and Losers: Karl Skala and Downtown Development

Buried deep in the Columbia City Council agenda for the upcoming April 21st meeting is an interesting item added to the agenda at the request of 3rd Ward Councilman Karl Skala.

B116-14 Authorizing a right of use permit with BMT of Columbia, LLC for installation, construction, improvement, operation, use, keeping, maintenance, repair and replacement of approximately 350 lineal feet of two-inch PVC sewer force main to extend in portions of an alley right-of-way located north of Broadway, between Tenth Street and Short Street; authorizing a right of use permit with BMT of Columbia, LLC for construction, improvement, operation and maintenance of private storm sewers in portions of the Tenth Street and East Broadway (1007 E. Broadway) rights-of-way. [Intro & 1st Read/Skala Memo]

At first glance, it looks like basic infrastructure — the type of drudgery that is usually ignored by most of the public, especially late in what is sure to be another marathon council meeting. But further investigation — ahem — reading the supporting documentation — ahem — reveals that Mr. Skala is proactively pushing for a new downtown, 5-story, mixed-use building that will house 36 beds and no additional parking. Residents will use the city-built and city-funded Short Street Garage.

skala1

Karl Skala

Wait, our City Manager Mike Matthes told us that without a TIF for infrastructure, Downtown development would stop.

Without a TIF, downtown development stops. “Plan B is no development downtown,” he [Matthes] said.

As we all know, this was untrue because only days after the TIF plan was rejected, the City approved two student housing projects totalling over 600 beds and tabled another 700-bed project. This, of course, prompted an initiative petition to repeal the ordinance from the folks at Repeal 6214, but that’s another story that most readers are familiar with already.

Mike Matthes

Mike Matthes

The interesting piece here is that Skala voted against each of these proposed downtown developments, despite the fact that both of them met current zoning ordinance requirements. Skala seems to have since changed course and is now spearheading support for a separate 5-story development proposal which is apparently more to his tastes.

Mr. Skala, a self-described statist, is obviously throwing a proverbial bone to a “local” developer, but why? He’ll probably claim that he is merely supporting the “type” of development that citizens want. He’ll likely claim that existing infrastructure, infrastructure that we’ve been told is hopelessly maxed out, can handle a new 5-story building.

The reality is that this bone is likely a meaty bone of political expedience. Skala is giving a nod to a local developer, attempting to allow BMT to cut in line ahead of 2000 legal beds that came down the pipe of public permission first. Perhaps this move will help fund Skala’s reelection campaign. At least it will allow him to claim to be pro-development when he is labeled as the opposite due to his voting against other projects.

Keep Columbia Free believes that, in a perfect world, the government would not tinker with the free market. Unfortunately, the world we live in is not perfect and the market is not a free one. What is clear is that in the world we’ve inherited locally the best thing for the council to do is simply level the playing field and let the chips fall where they may. If we need infrastructure, build it instead of spending our money on projects like parking garages, historic homes of unknown musicians, and useless “safety” cameras. It is unacceptable for a councilman to handpick which private developer will profit and which will not, regardless of how that choice might affect his reelection chances.

Share