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>.
