Tuesday, August 11, 2009

NRA appointee

I really thought last night that when Ed Cameron moved to remove John Morris' appointment from the agenda that he was going to ask that it be approved in one reading.

But no - Cameron was proposing that the appointment go to committee(s), including a Committee-of-the-Whole, so that the candidate is "fully vetted."

Oddly enough, of all the stuff I've written on here, the post about the movie relating to past actions of Mr. Morris generated I believe the most private responses.

I've had phone calls, emails ... well, one of each. And not surprisingly, the 2 people are directly opposed in their opinions of this man. Neither of them is related in any way to any sitting city councillors.

I've also heard from people who are, though.

And I'm not backing off my contention that building a TWO-STORY garage that blocks your neighbors' view of the river (or anything else) is inconsiderate and whatever else I said before. That's what I believe - and I would not do it - so why would I say or write anything else?

So that is all I am going to say, until another person comes along to support either or both positions by the two people I think of as "impartial."


Bubba said...

Some people might think it inconsiderate to deny someone the right to develop their property within the limits of applicable law - especially when the purchase price of said property reflected those rights and the property taxes paid on said property were also computed on that right.

Those who wish to protect their views can be considerate by choosing to compensate the rightful owner.

Dan Sweeney said...

Questions of impropriety have always had an air of appearance of most of John's appointments, haven't they! Now IF the council does their homework, they might have a chance to do some real good in reference to this long standing issue of the NRA lots and the Waterfront in general. At least prolong the acceptance to the next mayoral position. And who knows, just maybe the choices for the many open commission and board seats might open up to a better quality of residential activists and generally un 'connected' persons that have been ignored by this (and past) administration due to the lack of recognition of the need for a free and un chained voice and opinions in public matters? We are finally running out of the 'same 'ole' boyz to stack the deck with and the public is screaming for some new blood on these appointments. With the recent farces and circus atmosphere held in council over reappointments gone un challenged, or not studied, this might be time for the council to look into their own set of operational rules and spend some time actually getting to know the positions they are appointing people too and the need for open and natural opinions to un jam the thought and progress of these issues. Seems that each and every time a reappointment is called for, the 'stories' or processes are changed or continuance of the same logjams are not addressed. History and progress have been stymied by these appointments and will continue to follow suit as long as people with agendas are allowed to fill these seats.

If the introduction or a reference to a movie plot causes a step back to re examine the process, then there is real concern in not only this offering but the whole expedited appointment agendas! The process was intended to fill a gap in the re appointment process when there was a sudden loss of personnel. not to replace the investigation into the facts and search of relevant issues as associated with reappointing managers, committee members and positions of general authority of the council powers and readdressing performance issues. But as anything, has become abused in the process of 'streamlining' city business in council and elsewhere in the public process. The work must be done and the time to revert back to open and public policy is now! I hope this is the intention of Mr. Cameron and his direction for his fellow councilors to follow.

Dan Sweeney

Gillian Swart said...

Bubba, I'm not sure what you are referring to - the clam shack?

Was something "given" for the permit to build the garage, I wonder? Some concession made?

That happens so frequently around here that I have to wonder ...

In general, if something is above board, you don't need to ask for - or give - something in exchange.

Watch out for this, because the word "concessions" is used a lot when the name Karp comes up.

Bubba said...

I'm referring to the "2-story garage". The purchase price of the property reflected the ability to construct the garage - just as it lowered the purchase price for abutting properties that were not guaranteed views by ordinance or deed.