April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« Old and broke | Main | Worth remembering »

Jul 13, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Roch

One has to feel for the Community Theatre of Greensboro whose efforts to raise money to buy the Broach Theater haven't registered a tiny blip on the plans of the grand masters.

Brian

Ed - Curious about your statement that donors are finicky about location? What supports that?

I do support the idea of building it somewhere other than N. Elm St. I have been in favor of the N&R site, but am a bit concerned about the street grid being a limiting factor around that site. I think the same rings true of the N. Elm site.

Ed Cone

Roch, CTG seems to be getting support from donors. Not sure who counts as a grand master in your book, but there are some well-known local names on the list, and overlap (at least in general terms) with DPAC supporters. Of all proposed DPAC locations, this one looks best to me for CTG.

Brians, donors will support some sites and not others. This I've been told by impeccable sources. In fact, I thought it was common knowledge at this point.

Hartzman

"donors will support some sites and not others.

This I've been told by impeccable sources.

In fact, I thought it was common knowledge at this point."

News to me.

Let's not forget
how much Durham had to put into their Carolina Theater.

I believe it was about 4 to 5 million.

Brian

Ed - I don't doubt your impeccable sources, but it is news to me as well. That is a curious twist to the story as I think it would be a shame for the donors to be pitted against each based on the site. This might be a case study as to why it would have been best to do an analysis of which site is best prior to seeking donor support. I'm leery of a situation where, say, the biggest donors support the N. Elm site, but common sense and careful analysis says put it on Washington St. Which wins out? I would argue, the best site is more critical than who supports which site.

Hartzman

Which donors with which interests?

I fear Randall Kaplan and gang and the Empire Room.

btw...he got jacked on property taxes.

Roy, Robbie and Center Point.

Milt Kern and gang.

Opened can of worms this is.

Thomas

"I would argue, the best site is more critical than who supports which site."

Absent support, site selection is moot.

Hartzman

"Absent support, site selection is moot."

So who supports what and why?

Brian

Thomas - Perhaps that is true, but of the $15 million (thereabouts, right?) in private support promised, how much of that money leans towards one site, how much leans towards another? In other words, does some of that money disappear if one site is selected over another? Will a debate over donor support for one site or another derail the proposal? Perhaps it is chicken and egg, but seems so me that if the site was already lined up prior to asking for support, that support would not likely be divided.

Then again, perhaps this is much ado about nothing, but it makes it sound to me like there is some behind the scenese jockeying/lobbying among donors about which site is better rather than which site makes the most sense and serves the proposed purpose best.

Doubting Thomas

I'd go for this!
I'd even let Matt Brown manage it; just construct his office across the street from the City Manager's office so the manager can actually keep an eye on Brown to learn just exactly what it is Brown does to warrant a higher salary than the City Manager.

(No, not really, but I can dream, can't I?"

Billy Jones

Wow, without Ron this isn't any fun.

ron

I am concerned about the lot size across the street from the Carolina Theatre. It is an odd location. The police headquarters on one side, city hall on the other and the jail diagonally across the street. There are not that many development opportunities near this site. The big plus is that it is the only site left on the table that the city owns. Another plus is that the site is across from the Carolina Theatre. However I'm just not feeling this location. I still like the North Elm site and I love the concepts the task force has presented. I loved how the concept showed GPAC connecting with an expanded Festival Park.

Hartzman

If Matt Brown doesn't end up running it,
will the top brass at GN&R, Hammer etc...
not get thier free ticket for ad deals?

Imagine if $15 million plus whatever taxpayer kick in is available for x site,
but only $8 million for another.

What would this mean?

Why is the money dependent on the location?

How much more obvious could it be?

Or is it how stupid could so many be?

Taxpayer wealth transfer anyone?

Hartzman

If the difference (hypothetically) between the $8 million and the $15 million
is about location,
then should that money be considered "donations"
or "investments"?

Hartzman

Is there a strong correlation between political campaign donations
and the difference between those who would give regardless of location,
and those who wouldn't?

Hartzman

Some may feel as though others
have risen to their highest levels of incompetance?

Fec

Precisely. We get exactly the plan we have been looking for, and you shit all over it.

I'm having trouble at the moment believing I recently lamented your absence.

Ginia Zenke

We think it's a great idea. The Carolina, built as a movie theatre, has a too shallow a stage area, and the wings are rather clipped as well. We were wondering if it could be reworked from the proscenium arch back, maybe rebuilding the guts and enlarging the stage back to the sidewalk of Federal place. With the side concert hall on the parking lot of Washington and Greene and a PAC that could accommodate the larger shows, this extension might not be needed or not to the degree needed now.

The clustering of several theaters is a good one - just like clustering restaurants, it creates a critical mass that draws ongoing activity, rather than the vacuum of inactivity produce by, say, the colosseum most days. I think it would be neat to call it, not GPAC, but think of it as an expansion of one of our great architectural landmarks and call it the Carolina Performing Arts Center. It builds on something authentic to Greensboro instead of competing with it. Sort of bucks the trend established so far...

ron

I actually like Carolina Performing Arts Center over Greensboro Performing Arts Center particularly if this is a regional facility. I think Carolina Performing Arts Center or Triad Performing Arts Center would work.

Spag

"Why is the money dependent on the location? How much more obvious could it be?"

George is exactly right for a number of reasons. The "private donors" should pay for all of it. That way they can pick the site location. If there is a market for such a venue, then they can make money off of it. If there isn't, then they won't build it. Cities shouldn't use taxpayer money to build stadiums for multi-millionaires, nor should they build things like this- especially if it won't make money.

This is just more of the same corporatism that Ed and some other regulars so often rail against when it comes to things like Citizen United and buying influence. Yet when it comes to Greensboro and the "right" people, all of that seems to go out of the window. If you folks really want to end corporate influence in politics and government, you STOP letting them influence.

I think the Washington Street local would actually be a much better site. Regardless, if there is a market for such a venue then private money should pay for it. ALL of it.

Billy Jones

Ron wrote, "I am concerned about the lot size across the street from the Carolina Theatre. It is an odd location. The police headquarters on one side, city hall on the other and the jail diagonally across the street. There are not that many development opportunities near this site. The big plus is that it is the only site left on the table that the city owns. Another plus is that the site is across from the Carolina Theatre. However I'm just not feeling this location. I still like the North Elm site and I love the concepts the task force has presented. I loved how the concept showed GPAC connecting with an expanded Festival Park."

Seriously? For real? Your kidding, right? The lot in question includes the old IRS building and is larger than the proposed N Elm site. As for "development opportunities near this site"? Apparently you're unaware of the existence of the many old buildings on Spring Garden Street.

And unlike the Elm St site or the Washington St site, the city actually owns this property.

How about some truth for a change, Ron? Are you employed by or compensated in ANY way by ANY of the principals involved in ANY of the efforts to build a Greensboro performing arts center?

And don't forget, lying by omission is still a lie.

Hartzman

"There are not that many development opportunities near this site."

not many for whom?

"The Carolina, built as a movie theatre,
has a too shallow a stage area,
and the wings are rather clipped as well.

We were wondering if it could be reworked from the proscenium arch back,
maybe rebuilding the guts and enlarging the stage back to the sidewalk of Federal place."

Agreed.

Who is "we"?

I think it would be neat to call it, not GPAC,
but think of it as an expansion of one of our great architectural landmarks
and call it the Carolina Performing Arts Center.

It builds on something authentic to Greensboro
instead of competing with it.

Sort of bucks the trend established so far..."

Agreed, but let's make the Carolina Theater the CPAC,
with all those promised "donations"
then what may be another set of "we"
will not have to borrow and spend about $30 million.
.
.
"many old buildings on Spring Garden Street."

Agreed.
.
.
"Ron? Are you employed by or compensated in ANY way by ANY of the principals involved in ANY of the efforts to build a Greensboro performing arts center?

And don't forget, lying by omission is still a lie."

boom.

Hartzman

Did Nancy Hoffman purchase a commercial property downtown?

If so or not, who else has what interests where downtown?

What is so nausiating is the lack of openess
as to who gets richer with the thing
depending on where is goes.

Ed Cone

I find George's constant innuendo and blind allegations to be ethically suspect and also to undermine the credibility of his whistleblower case. His case may have merit - the boy who cried wolf eventually met a wolf -but this act has grown very tired.

Also, the people who run the Carolina have no pretense that the facility could become the PAC, so, no.

Billy Jones

But Ed, despite the tiring and trying effects of George's efforts (tiring and trying as even I find them to be) it is true that placement of the PAC has everything to do with who profits and who doesn't. (Even you admit that to be true.) Therefore, as George keeps repeating in his own misunderstood and very tiring way, as long as we-the-taxpayers are to be expected to assume even 1 CENT of the cost of building the PAC the we-the-taxpayers have every right to know every detail including ALL the "constant innuendo and blind allegations". After all, if our so called, "civic leaders" were more forthright there would be no opportunity for the Georges, Billys, Bubbas, Spags and other "naysayers" to find fault with their plans.

So it can only be assumed, that since our "civic leaders" are in control of the entire process, this is how they want the Georges, Billys, Bubbas, Spags and other "naysayers" to respond to their plans. After all, if Greensboro history has taught us nothing, it has taught us that Greensboro's "civic leaders" are going to build and do exactly as they damned well please no matter what the Georges, Billys, Bubbas, Spags and other "naysayers" have to say about it.

In other words, quit ye'r bitchin' George is just doin' his job!

Spag

Ed, you complain about the negative effect of rich people and corporations on politics all of the time. Yet when it comes to your circle of old money, Irving Park rich people and corporations and their influence on politics it's a different story. THAT act is growing tired.

George is only asking the questions about real life concerns that you so often merely allude to when it comes to politics outside of Greensboro. George wants to follow the money that you claim is destroying our system elsewhere. You seem to be in denial that it could possibly be a factor here EVEN as you allude to "donors" who have an agenda.

Show some consistency for a change. On one topic after another your positions/values seem to shift depending on your own agenda or interests.

Fred Gregory

Billy..And the Freds...

Who are standing athwart history, yelling Stop !!!

hartzman

Wow

Ed Cone

"it is true that placement of the PAC has everything to do with who profits and who doesn't. (Even you admit that to be true.)"

No. I do not believe this to be so.

A lot of generous people, corporations, and perhaps foundations are lining up to help fund this thing.

The idea such gifts must be made for personal gain is the definition of cynicism, and I've seen no evidence of it. Donors do have opinions about which sites are most workable, and which ones they'll support, but that's not an indication of seeking financial gain. If I see it, I'll report it, but so far I'm seeing volunteers lining up significant philanthropic contributions while people lob substance-free allegations from the sidelines.

Andrew Brod

Clearly, you're part of the conspiracy. What land do YOU own downtown?

Ginia Zenke

Hartzman,
Take it easy!
The "we" I refer to is simply my family; my brother and my mother. As designers and downtowners we've always loved the older elegant buildings and imagine if/how they could be updated to maximize their usefulness. We love GSO, in spite of the fact that the government tries to bulldoze our homes down around our ears every 40 or 50 years or so. Ed said something about the single axis of Elm St (the "Cultural District" that all the signs point to...) that has long been the focus of all efforts in downtown, and ...my family and I.... have always thought the Y axis could be Washington Street, which is home to the Depot, the Southeastern Building? SE corner of Elm/Wash? the Carolina Theatre, the Biltmore, and Blandwood. "We've" just never thought anyone was listening...
Thanks!

Hartzman

Google map of 304 South Elm Street.

I believe Nancy just recused herself.


Billy Jones

Ed,
I think it was in the 6th grade in public school that we learned that journalism reports what, when, where and who. To date, we've not seen even these basics when it comes to the "lot of generous people, corporations, and perhaps foundations are lining up to help fund this thing."

Much less anything specific.

In other words, until our "civic leaders" are prepared to disclose the what, when, where and who you can expect the "cynicism" and "substance-free allegations from the sidelines" to continue to grow louder and louder, perhaps to the point of drowning out any sort of rational discourse.

Now if that is what Greensboro's "civic leaders" want to see happen then myself and others will be more than happy to start making even more so called, "cynicism" and "substance-free allegations from the sidelines" but unless it's true that Greensboro's "civic leaders" have risen to their highest levels of incompetence they'd be smart to encourage the local media to start publishing some real facts and figures accompanied by the names of the principals, doners, etc. You know, hard data with real numbers that don't change by $20 Million or so with each new article published.

(Seriously Dude, I could bring back the streetplane and drum up 20,000 new page views a day overnight and the PAC would have to spend tens of $Millions on PR alone Over 30 Million people saw it the last time it flew. It might be I'm not good at making money but noise is what I'm best at. I can see the N&R headline now, Crazed Local Poet Dive Bombs And Destroys GPAC!)

Anything less appears as if they've something to hide. That or they're the most incompetent bunch of morons to ever try to stack bricks in the shape of a building. (I'll leave it to others to decide which but hey, they're you're friends and neighbors and it is they who painted the picture drew the cartoon strip the rest of us get to view.)

Gina wrote: "We love GSO, in spite of the fact that the government tries to bulldoze our homes down around our ears every 40 or 50 years or so."

Note: Greensboro never tried to bulldoze Irving Park but now that Robbie Perkins is living Downtown maybe there's hope yet. Then the Cone clan will see a side of Greensboro they never knew existed.

Fred, My apologies for leaving you out.

David Hoggard

Why must "civic leaders" be in quotations? Run for office, get in charge of something, do something civic besides throw tomatoes at the people who take the time to show up for the meetings and stick with it, and you, too, can become a civic leader without the need for quotation marks.

Holliday has floated a plan. A good plan. Give it time to flesh out. Look for the skeletons in the closet once we find out the closet's address. But here's the real deal: none of you will be for ANYTHING involving ANY public money.

Noted. But when it turns out that public money will be involved (and it will), that doesn't make everyone involved in making it happen a criminal.

I used to to be the poster boy for a Greensboro naysayer, but you guys have eclipsed my nay-saying reputation by a factor or 6, or so.

Hartzman. You are a laughable fool specializing in drive-by innuendo.

Hartzman

A bit more under the hood:
.
.
.
"I met with Jeff Gauger for a couple of hours last night."

from: George Hartzman hartzmancpe@
to: efcone@

bcc: Jeff Horwitz Matthew Evans

date: Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 10:04 AM
subject: Re: boom
.
.
.
"If I ask Gauger for you to do the Wells story,
would you be interested?"

From: George Hartzman
Sent: Jul 14, 2012 11:27 AM
To: efcone
Subject: Gauger
.
.
.
"I find George's constant innuendo and blind allegations
to be ethically suspect
and also to undermine the credibility of his whistleblower case.

..Also, the people who run the Carolina
have no pretense that the facility could become the PAC, so, no."

Posted by: Ed Cone | Jul 14, 2012 at 12:02 PM
.
.
.
I've never heard of the N&R using freelancers for news stories.

Also, I'm not a newspaper writer.

Or a freelancer.

So, probably a non-starter.

efcone@
5:03 PM (4 hours ago)
.
.
.
"Obviously."

George Hartzman 5:10 PM (4 hours ago) to efcone@

Hartzman

look at the last page.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Hartzman
Sent: Jul 13, 2012 3:44 PM
To: George Hartzman
Subject: boom
.
.
.
cannot open with my version of pdf reader, security issue

efcone@ Jul 13 (1 day ago)
.
.
.
case sensitive password wF479ptQ

I talked to both gentlemen in the last 48 hours...

From: George Hartzman
Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: boom
To: efcone@

Hartzman

"I'm not a newspaper writer.

Or a freelancer."

Ed Cone
.
.
.
Really?
.
.
.
Details for Edward Cone

Email Address: efcone

Bio: Senior Writer and author...

Ed Cone has worked as a contributing editor at Wired;
a staff writer at Forbes;
a senior writer for Ziff Davis with Baseline and Interactive Week;
and as a freelancer based in Paris and then North Carolina
for a wide variety of magazines and papers including the International Herald Tribune,
Texas Monthly, and Playboy.

He writes an opinion column in his hometown paper, the Greensboro News & Record,
and publishes the semi-popular EdCone.com weblog.

Billy Jones

David Hoggard,
I've taken no shots at Keith Holiday's plan, even defended it above when the paid shill, Ron, tried to make the unfounded claim above that the property Keith has chosen was too small and there was no room for development nearby. Weeks ago, I spoke with Keith in person about his plan before he went public with it and think it the second best plan next to my own plan and told him so. We had a very pleasant talk, agreed on the merits of each others' plans and even agreed on the reasons as to why my plan will never fly.

So yes, Ed, I have much more insight than you can possibly know even with all your Irving Park connections who love to fill your inbox with just enough info to work their magic.

And like you, David, I have run for office in the past. Remember?

I have locked horns with Keith on issues in the past but he was the best mayor Greensboro had in my lifetime and I bear him no ill will. I believe his interest in the Carolina Theater is purely civic and in the interest of Greensboro, not his own. Hell, his daddy used to fix my shoes. And my daddy's shoes!

Now, back to reality: If our so called, "civic leaders" were more forthright there would be no opportunity for the Georges, Billys, Freds, Bubbas, Spags and other "naysayers" to find fault with their plans.

Reality is: At least some of the non profits and foundations with money to spend are controlled by directors who have stakes in the game and stand to gain or lose depending on where the PAC is built so yes there is truth to the "constant innuendo and blind allegations to be ethically suspect" that Ed wishes would go away. That, my friends, is the primary reason that most of Greensboro's foundations and non profits all share pretty much all the same boards of directors. You know, keep the money in the family, so to speak.

So it can only be assumed, that since our "civic leaders" are in control of the entire process, this is how they want the Georges, Billys, Freds, Bubbas, Spags and other "naysayers" to respond to their plans. After all, if Greensboro history has taught us nothing, it has taught us that Greensboro's "civic leaders" are going to build and do exactly as they damned well please no matter what the Georges, Billys, Freds, Bubbas, Spags and other "naysayers" have to say about it.

In other words, quit ye'r bitchin' the Georges, Billys, Freds, Bubbas, Spags and other "naysayers" is just doin' our jobs!

And if all of us was to run for office as you suggest it would only serve to create a bigger clusterf!!K than what we have now. The difference being, the Georges, Billys, Freds, Bubbas, Spags and other "naysayers" is just smart enough to know it and our current crop of "civic leaders" apparently ain't that smart.

In other words, my bright and dear friends, running for office ain't always the solution it's cracked up to be and in too many instances is a complete waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere.

And George Hartzman, take a nap and give it a rest-- you've earned a break.

And David, thank you for giving me the chance to say more.

Ed Cone

George, to be clear, me telling you there was no way for me to write an article for Gauger was wholly separate from the comment about your behavior and the Carolina. You chose to reprint my comment here as if it was a response to your request, which it was not.

Also, freelancing was in the past tense in that long-outdated bio you found, and it's even more so now, and in any case as noted I don't think the N&R freelances news articles.

Also, it's bad form to publish personal emails without permission. Not that I said anything of great interest, but I was under the impression that we were writing each other in some confidence. Your willingness to violate that confidence changes my understanding of our email correspondence, which I invite you now to discontinue.

ron

"it is true that placement of the PAC has everything to do with who profits and who doesn't"

Hartzman does have a point. For example, Mr Randall Kaplan is on the task force. If GPAC ends up on the News & Record lot, it indirectly benefits the Elm Street Center and his proposed Wyndham hotel which would be across the street from the News & Record Lot. The key is looking at who is on the task force and how these people will benefit depending on where its built. There is nothing unethical about these people being on the task force but it is unethical if they use their position to push for a location that benefits them financially.

Ed Cone

There's a difference between "has everything to do" and "should be watched for signs of."

The first is false and malicious. The second is common sense.

Hartzman

"me telling you there was no way for me to write an article for Gauger
was wholly separate from the comment about your behavior and the Carolina."

Understood.

...freelancing was in the past tense
in that long-outdated bio you found, and it's even more so now,
and in any case as noted
I don't think the N&R freelances news articles."

OK
.
.
.
"it's bad form to publish personal emails without permission."

I am the one backed into a corner.

Should you question those with less to lose,
who may think you have what they need, who may be saying what you want to hear,
while urging you to do what they don’t want to or wont?

Can business and/or political interests negatively affect investigative journalism,
by sheltering some from inhospitable exposure
while simultaneously disparaging opponents?

Could a moment when most understand what few knew
be more important than the first discovery?
.
.
.
"Your willingness to violate that confidence
changes my understanding of our email correspondence,
which I invite you now to discontinue."

Agreed.
.
.
.
Is it hard to get entrenched economic and political leadership to understand,
if relative legitimacy depends on not understanding?

If you have to lose, should the most valuable pieces be protected
by sacrificing the less valuable first,
like a pawn before a rook or a stranger before family?

David Hoggard

Ron, what if the selection of a particular location is BOTH the best for the community AND happens to somehow benefit someone who happens to be on the task force?

According to all of this innuendo and charges of ulterior motives leveled at those on the task force - or even those tangentially involved - , perhaps the only way to squelch this crap would have been to appoint the task force from residents of Atlanta.

Most of you just can't fathom that people can - and do - serve their communities with the the driving motivation being simply to make the community better.

This witch hunt is just silly to behold.

Hartzman

"There is nothing unethical about these people being on the task force
but it is unethical if they use their position
to push for a location that benefits them financially."

Well said Ron.

So what donors are going to pull how much money
if the PAC location doesn't suit them?

What we have here is a lack of transparency
caused by a shortfall of disclosure.

Ed Cone

Capital campaigns typically have quiet phases during which major gifts are solicited and momentum built.

This campaign has been in that phase.

I believe there is an extra requirement for transparency on this project, as it involves public resources and approval. I will hold the planners to that standard.

Fortunately, the process has been slowed so that there's plenty of time for public discussion and decision-making.

Hartzman

"I believe there is an extra requirement for transparency on this project,
as it involves public resources and approval.

I will hold the planners to that standard."

Agreed and Thanks.

Billy Jones

I believe this conversation began, based on the make up of the boards of the non profits and foundations that have a say in what sites they are willing to donate their money for construction of a PAC. Are Ed Cone, Ron, the Shill and David Hoggard now saying that these non profits, foundations, for profits and the Task Force are really one in the same? 'Cause reading back through the last few comments you are all suddenly defending the Task Force when the Task Force wasn't the previous subject of our conversation.

Pick a, b or c.

a. So which is it-- are we discussing the foundations and non profits with money to spend?

b. Are we discussing the task force?

c. Or are both really one in the same?

And do you realize the implications if the answer is c?

Again, apparently, this is exactly what Greensboro's "civic leaders" want us to believe for it is they who keep painting these ugly pictures. They even pay morons like Ron to do the paint by numbers. "Ron, are you freaking color blind too? That doesn't go there!"

As for transparency, Robbie Perkins attempted to bring about an end to any transparency months ago before they left the retreat. It is only because of the efforts of the Georges, Billys, Freds, Bubbas, Spags and other "naysayers" that we have ANY transparency whatsoever. Who in the hell do you think slowed the process? It wasn't Greensboro's spoon fed journalists reporting only what the politicos and the task force wanted to see reported, that much is for sure.

And Ron, Are you employed by or compensated in ANY way by ANY of the principals involved in ANY of the efforts to build a Greensboro performing arts center?

And don't forget, lying by omission is still a lie.

Funny, I must have asked Ron that question a hundred times and still no answer. Not a peep. Why you reckon that is? Anyone?

Sticks and stones make break my bones bur Ron's afraid of answers??? Funny, I don't remember it going like that... Guess things change with time.

Lastly, but not leastly, build it with 100% private money on 100% private property and you can do any damned thing you like and the Georges, Billys, Freds, Bubbas, Spags and a whole lot of other "naysayers" will go away happy.

Ed Cone

To my knowledge, the majority of fundraising has not been from non-profits or foundations, but from corporations and individuals (earlier: "A lot of generous people, corporations, and perhaps foundations are lining up to help fund this thing.")

I'd be surprised to hear of any major binding pledge made to a project without a site and a plan in mind. We're talking here about assessing the donor landscape and lining up potential donors. People may commit in principle, but that's not the same thing as committing principal.

If the process is not transparent once the campaign goes public, that's a problem. If the process is revealed to be guided by self-interest, also a problem. So far, there's no evidence of either problem.

Billy Jones

Ed wrote, "If the process is not transparent once the campaign goes public, that's a problem. If the process is revealed to be guided by self-interest, also a problem. So far, there's no evidence of either problem."

Were the public forums we had a few months ago not supposed to be the public part of the campaign? Can you and others not see at least the appearance of putting the cart before the jack ass?

The process appeared to begin in a secret retreat attended by the politicos-- not good for the the appearance of transparency.

Ross Harris censored the twitter feed-- again, so much for transparency.

In January, Robbie Perkins stated it will be done as if he were a god or at least a king. Pretty transparent but not in the sort of way that lends itself to open and honest governance or public trust.

Personally, I think I would have to try to screw up a process so badly and I'm pretty damned good at screwing up.

Spag

If this is all about community service and civic duty, then what difference does a few blocks make ?

Apparently a lot which raises the suspicion that this is not just about community service and civic duty.

As stated before and remains unaddressed, if you want to decrease the influence of money on politics, don't let money influence politics.

The comments to this entry are closed.