Tuesday, October 11, 2005

LPDS Daily Dose

Several letters in the ABH on LPDS, most notably one from States himself, defending himself against Monday's editorial and other recent news of his behavior after the meeting last week and in misrepresenting the facts on LPDS. Next, there's one from Mollie Parry King, apparently an opposed resident of David Lynn's district, giving her preemptive I-told-you-so for when LPDS turns the east side into the Mos Eisley bar scene from Star Wars. Finally, there is a supportive letter from Caren M. Snook, an east side resident, which details once again most of the arguments for and against.

I want to thank the Cedar Creek resident who responded to my previous post. I responded to the editorial somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but after further thought and after reading that response, I think the editorial is absolutely right in one sense. States behavior makes it impossible for those who wish to express reasonable concerns, like that poster, to do so. While it is not very likely that my opinion will change at this late date on this issue, and equally unlikely that those opposed will have a change of heart, perhaps if the two sides engage in a reasonable dialogue, the best result for the east side and the community at large can be reached, with or without LPDS (hopefully with).

11 comments:

RandomThoughts said...

Just want to say a few words to remind everyone of the bottom line here. It does not matter WHY the majority are opposed to rezoning or whether or not their reasons are valid. IF the majority are opposed it should not pass. I personally do not want my commissioners deciding what is best for me. I am capable of making my own decisions. That's why I vote.

I wish LPDS a lot of luck. I think it would be nice. And I don't know that the majority are opposed. But whichever way it is, the majority should decide.

How the Commissioners will decide what the majority wants is open to debate but I hope each will make an honest attempt to find out and vote accordingly instead of playing at "Big Brother".

RandomThoughts said...

how can i email you guys?

Buck Laughlin said...

Actually, I think this is one of those cases where public opinion does not--or should not--count.

This is a rezoning request, a legal matter. If there's a legal basis for denying the rezone, the Commission should deny. If not, they should approve, public opinion be damned.

Publius said...

The question is bigger than that, and if anyone here can figure out the answer, the American Association of Political Scientists might like to hear from you.

Are elected officials supposed to always vote with the majority of their constituents, or do they have a greater role to fulfill?

This isn't a political theory blog, and since yours truly's IQ doesn't break the bank, I'm not going to figure this one out for you.

But I would mention that if this were solely a matter of public opinion, then we should take it out of the hands of the M&C and have a referendum on it.

hillary said...

IF the majority are opposed it should not pass.

Oy. Rights of the minority?

Anonymous said...

"Oy. Rights of the minority?"

Insert your own five points fire station comment here.

DoubleDawgDareYa said...

All of the arguments about whether majority rules on this issue or not, my question is: which majority? Cedar Creek residents? East side residents? ACC residents? Residents who will be "affected"? The very problem of answering this question is why in this case, the M&C should probably vote based on two things, both of which were already touched on: 1) the law on rezoning; and 2) what is best for ACC. Yes, sometimes the M&C do get to decide what's best for us. That's why we elect them. Every issue can not be decided by majority vote. And it's probably a good thing that all of them aren't.

Jmac said...

I agree. There much more than just the majority at work here in this one, and it's hard to determine which majority we're talking about (the folks right by the site? Cedar Creek? Eastside Athens as a whole? All of Athens-Clarke County?). As a result, we have to examine the legality of the rezoning issue (which LPDS passes with flying colors), as well as take a look at influences on those for and against.

That is, it is very possible that folks are receiving biased information from both sides about this project, which means the M&C must approach this in a logical and rationale way.

RandomThoughts said...

I certainly agree that legality is the first test. But there seems to be some question about that so we move on to the next test. Majority or Minority and who decides the issue. Since there has been so much disagreement on this issue it is a hard call. I hope each Commissioner will vote as he or she believes his or her district citizens would like him or her to vote. That is why we elected them. If we can't count on them to vote as we indicate we prefer then we need to elect new representatives. But they should by now have solicited input from all areas of their districts and be prepared to vote for all those people and not for their own personal beliefs. I wish there were a better way but unless the law is clear on this I don't see any real choice but to trust to the Commissioners.

monticello_pres said...

I think this is an excellent discussion - and I'm waiting for the "right" answer. Not sure I know what that is.

As a Democratic (Federal) Republic, we certainly elect our officials to act on our behalf. I'm sure there is a cool latin phrase for that, but I must have slept in latin class that day.

That is not to say, however, that we cannot (and should not) contact them in order to express our opinions. And a deft politician, who will seek reelection (or even one that may not) should certainly consider the majority opinion of his/her constituants.

Of course, there are arguements for both sides. Would women be allowed to vote or would desegregation have occured if politicians only voted based on their constituant majority? Don't want to open up a can of worms, but...

Back to reality (from hypothetically), and there you get into the fact that Mr McCarter and Mr Dodson's constituants are likely to feel one way with the other commissioners' voting block being neutral or feeling another way. Wow, what a dilemma. Now that $15k salary is looking a bit light for the efforts these 10 folks put in.

Last comment for the night. As for those who hold a grudge or even try to "bully" those with differing opinions, Get a Grip. (This comment may well be directed at more people on "my side" of this fence than "the other"). After all, we don't always have to agree on everything. Some healthy disagreement with some healthy debate is... well... healthy.

hillary said...

the fact that Mr McCarter and Mr Dodson's constituants are likely to feel one way with the other commissioners' voting block being neutral or feeling another way

But I'm not sure this really is the case. There are, for example, plenty of renters on the East side. Admittedly, they don't have property value concerns, but they are just as much Dodson's and McCarter's constituents, and yet we are hearing nothing from them.