On Feb 14, 2008, at 10:42 PM, 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?
I have been on the Provincetown Cable Commission and the Board of
Provincetown Community Television. The Cable Commission negotiated the
town's contract with Comcast. The Board drew up the yearly budget for
the town's public access television studio and presented it to the
Board of Selectmen, among many other things.
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.
Yes you did. You presented only those as alternatives when asked if
community input was valid.
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.
I brought up my friend's illness because it directly affected
something for which you were berating me: not being present in the
neighborhood for a few weeks at a time. Am I criticizing you for
something that is affected by your illness? If so, I apologize. If
not, why even bring this up?
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.
Then don't. No one is asking you to participate actively on this
listserv. It's your choice.
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.
No, the two don't follow. There is nothing even roughly equivalent. My
personal information is rightly private. Information regarding an
application for a zoning variance is just as rightly public. I really
have no secrets but I don't respond to bullying. Sorry. Besides, the
size and source of my income has no bearing on my value as a member of
this neighborhood.
Frank
-- 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>.
