New big blue signs in SoWal

[Dave Rauschkolb]

I am hearing of a great dividing issue within the leadership of the "Scenic Pride Initiative" corcerning the road forward. A great debate over how to proceeed at this time is currently underway.

The removal of the signs is only a part of this issue. Without a realization of the core issue behind the signs - "a lack of consideration of the historic nature of the corridor"- and respect for coordination with all parties - then the core issue will just simply resurface itself is some other manner.

Is it a win if you simply "buy out" your opponent?

"Lions for Lambs"

OHH OHH, just like a soap opera.

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Have you ever been wrong in your evaluation of a group's determination and commitment to follow through ? I have and when I am I plant my feet firmly on the ground and stand ready for the hoots and hollers of those who were right.

My earlier post was very clear in my congratulations to the group of dedicated people. I attended all three of the public meetings where Scenic Pride was seeking the "Big Ugly Signs" removal. I openly admit that my initial evaluation was a negative evaluation. I openly admit that the group made tremendous gains between the 1st TDC meeting and the Workshop. It seems people with expertise were brought into the group or allowed to display their talents. Job well done ! Was I wrong - yep ! and I admit it.

The second part of my post revealed some insight into the political maneuvers that I think were very apparent. You may disagree and on that we will disagree. The politicians were at work just as hard behind the scenes to find a solution while maintaining their electibility in the future.

The third part of the post dealt with my past experiences in matters such as this. Don't pop the cork out of the bottle to early. I distinctly remember George W flying onto an aircraft carrier and declaring the victory and job complete. That was over 5 years ago and guess what - we are still there ! You never, never underestimate the oposition. When you strike at the "King" you had better make sure you eliminate him.

Have a great day ! I will be there on April 22 to see you complete what has been started.

Thats a statesman's answer - not a politicians spin !

Well said like a statesman Puppetmaster. No one is going to condemn you for being frank and honest and admitting you clearly underestimated our resolve to see this through. It takes a big person to admit when they are wrong.

It is in fact the skeptics who sometime motivate people by saying what they are working on is not possible. In a strange way it is a motivator. I appreciate your honesty and your opinion in any form as long as it is not mean spirited. The wonderful thing about Sowal is everyone's opinion is equal and valid and I value your opinion.

Dave ;-)

 

[John R]

Puppetmaster, thanks for the response. I quoted the first message from you because is seemed so final, like you were in on the deal. Then I see the most recent(blue sign) message from you and it's 180* the other way. I didn't see anything in the middle(i didn't go searching) to indicate otherwise. Just struck me as kind of odd. I am one of the ones that didn't see the possible political motives from the current TDC board, thanks for bringing that to light.

Maybe you or Robert could give some conjecture as to why Mr. Brannon hasn't been to any of the TDC meetings we've all been to. It seems like our BCC person would want to be there. But, based on other posts I've seen here regarding Mr. Brannon, it doesn't look like he attends to much.

 

[wrobert]

Maybe you or Robert could give some conjecture as to why Mr. Brannon hasn't been to any of the TDC meetings we've all been to. It seems like our BCC person would want to be there. But, based on other posts I've seen here regarding Mr. Brannon, it doesn't look like he attends to much.

Well Scott is running for re-election so I am sure he will be given an opportunity to explain if he chooses.

What I find puzzling would be how could he participate in the discussion as a member of the TDC and then make a decision as a member of the BCC at a later date.

On another note, email him. I get responses from him so someone must be reading them.

 

[GoodWitch58]

Well Scott is running for re-election so I am sure he will be given an opportunity to explain if he chooses.

What I find puzzling would be how could he participate in the discussion as a member of the TDC and then make a decision as a member of the BCC at a later date.

On another note, email him. I get responses from him so someone must be reading them.

Well, then, Robert, if this is the case why do we have him on the TDC? Everything they do comes before the BCC, if it is a conflict--then why have the position of a BCC representative? Please help me understand the thinking.

 

[wrobert]

Well, then, Robert, if this is the case why do we have him on the TDC? Everything they do comes before the BCC, if it is a conflict--then why have the position of a BCC representative? Please help me understand the thinking.

I wish I could but I have never understood the makeup of that board since all it does is recommend to the BCC. If they had authority to actually approve something I could see it.

 

[John R]

What I find puzzling would be how could he participate in the discussion as a member of the TDC and then make a decision as a member of the BCC at a later date.

On another note, email him. I get responses from him so someone must be reading them.

If he's chosen to be the BCC rep for the TDC, I figure he should be at the meetings. He can always abstain from voting and/or leave the room during discussions where there could be a potential conflict.

That's what I had to do when I was on a commission.

 

[wrobert]

If he's chosen to be the BCC rep for the TDC, I figure he should be at the meetings. He can always abstain from voting and/or leave the room during discussions where there could be a potential conflict.

That's what I had to do when I was on a commission.

I would have to agree. If you are not going to show up, then step down and let someone else do it.

 

[DuneLaker]

It is not the board makeup that is confusing. The point here is a person appointed to represent the public rarely shows up for meetings, especially when they are important to the public.

 

[John R]

It is not the board makeup that is confusing. The point here is a person appointed to represent the public rarely shows up for meetings, especially when they are important to the public.

especially when they are up for reelection...