Here are other some of my other recent articles
TIF discussion - again -
Road improvements on Old Troy before Riverside, Office Building vs Gas Station, Executive Session
Purpose:The main reason for this post is to expose you to what I feel is a good discussion on a contentious issue by two people that intend to vote differently.
A secondary reason is because the way my website constructs the mobile version the latest post come up first and I’d like you to have the link to my position on Issue 25 available first.
Body:
Paul Schaeffer and I have written a lot of words about Issue 25. I thought I would cut and paste some of those conversations here. I didn’t expect them to look all that good. In fact, trying that crashed the webpage, so instead I will just point you to those conversations. Here is a little context.
This first post is a collection of his arguments. In that post he summarizes some of my positions. My reading is that in his summarization, he misses a lot of the nuances that show my position is correct.
This post is where you will find a lot of the source for his summary of my positions that he used in the post above.
You need to read the comments in the second link to be able to judge how well he summarized my positions in the main article found at the first link. The nuances make a difference.
In fact, having just re-read a couple of those paragraphs, I get the impression that he created that post because he knows he loses the argument on practically every paragraph he addresses so he created this article so he can control the narrative. On the other hand, he has previously advised me to create posts within his Huber Heights Community Forum of the discussions that happened within comments. He gives that advice so those comments don't get missed by viewers. This post would be consistent with that advice. So he may not have purposely written his articl to present a false impression. That may just be a consequence. I highly encourage you to read the comments in both links to see if his post is an accurate depiction of our back and forth or if the information he chooses not to include really does affect which one of us makes the better argument.
In the next section is an example of what I am refering too. Notice how what he writes in the article about executive sessions starts with something we talked about. He ignores the information that shows the City attorney can't be relied upon to give accurate information about whether the purpose is legal or not. Then he comes to the conclusion that whether the executive sessions are legal or not isn't going to stop how often council goes into executive session. I personally, believe that if the public knew how often council goes into executive session for reasons that are not legal, council would stop doing it so often.
Example:
In the post at the first link he writes:
"I disagree also with some of the things that are discussed in executive sessions. However, according to the City’s legal counsel, all those discussions are conducted in accordance with the law and for the reasons provided before going into executive session, those discussions are appropriate."
When we discussed this in the second link I provided this information:
"I read that you are inclined to unquestioningly, accept the interpretation of the city attorney over what is obvious if you look at the situation yourself. This next information is a case where if you look at it you will see the City Attorney is obviously wrong. I provide it in hopes you change your philosophy."
In this video the city attorney composes the motion to go into executive session to discipline an elected official.
Having this example of when its obvious that the city attorney was telling council they could go into executive session when it obviosly does not match the law, Paul tells us he still will not question the City Attorney's judgment.
Look at all the paragraphs in the article at the first link and compare that paragraph to the discussion we had on that subject in the comments and you will see the same trend of him not capturing the points I was making which, if he had done correctly, would show the problems with his conclusions.
Note - when I say mostly respectable conversation, I jab Paul pretty often. Typically, I justify it because I read some of his statements as off point. Sometime its because I read it wrong the first time and sometimes its because its off point. In any case, neither of our attitudes displayed here, or the Facebook posts, should be too distracting.
Join me in voting no on Issue 25 - make council put police and fire services first!
Edited