Except he lives in Ward 2.

Obama should run for Ward 3 councilmember

Guys, there's like a hundred-page thread about the pool. Can you take it over there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support....."

I don't know what you know about politics, but people who are anti anything are much, much more motivated than those who are content.

Agree. I know a little about politics, and I know that anyone who says they know with precision how voters feel about a specific local issue is lying. It's the great conundrum of local politics: are the 40 people who showed up a community meeting representative, or all of the people who feel that way?

Notice that in any neighborhood dispute both sides will always characterize the other as a "vocal minority" and themselves as the "silent majority."

How Nixonian.

Both politicians and the law recognize that person who may be particularly and adversely impacted by a project are sometimes due special consideration. That's why, for example, the zoning code or alcohol licensing regulations require service on nearby residents and may give them special party status. Otherwise the obviously limited number of persons directly affected would always be at the mercy of the "silent majority' who might enjoy the benefits but none of the impacts of a project -- a major highway or in this case the loss of park space for a pool.

While this is true, when you are talking about a public park, just like a public school, the threshold is much lower, if not non-existent. You chose to live near a public park. If you don't like what the public plans are for the park, then move. But you do not have the right to be an obstruction to an amenity that the public wants for its park. It isn't yours. It is all of ours.

To continue this point, there is a reason that zoning only appies to private property. The presumption is that the owner of private property will act only in his own self interest. To the extent that he imposes a negative externality on his neighbors, it is the role of government to step in and prevent it or mitigate it. The presumption is different for government entities, that they act in the public interest, and no external review is necessary to insure that interests are properly balanced. How those interests are balanced is in essence a political question.

The reality may be different but that is the theory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support it.

For the 140 people who oppose the homeless shelter at McLean Gardens, there are 140 at Observatory Circle who supported the switch.

For the 50 inbound Eaton families who are bummed about lack of Deal, [b]there are 1,000 Janney and Murch families who are happy with the status quo.

Get real, Cheh is making decisions that are in net balance a positive for her support.

Ok, good. Then I want the Janney families to STFU about crowding at their school. They chose it, own it.

Mary, is that you? Because I've heard Cheh espouse a version of that line of thinking.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that a) the people who are at Janney today aren't the same as the ones that were there in 2014; and b) just because one suggested solution was rejected doesn't mean the problem is solved or the government is off the hook for solving it.

um that was 3 years ago, and students attend ES for 7 years, so where did all the people from 2014 go? You crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support....."

I don't know what you know about politics, but people who are anti anything are much, much more motivated than those who are content.

Agree. I know a little about politics, and I know that anyone who says they know with precision how voters feel about a specific local issue is lying. It's the great conundrum of local politics: are the 40 people who showed up a community meeting representative, or all of the people who feel that way?

Notice that in any neighborhood dispute both sides will always characterize the other as a "vocal minority" and themselves as the "silent majority."

How Nixonian.

Both politicians and the law recognize that person who may be particularly and adversely impacted by a project are sometimes due special consideration. That's why, for example, the zoning code or alcohol licensing regulations require service on nearby residents and may give them special party status. Otherwise the obviously limited number of persons directly affected would always be at the mercy of the "silent majority' who might enjoy the benefits but none of the impacts of a project -- a major highway or in this case the loss of park space for a pool.

Fascinating.

So, you are defending the right of the vocal minority to stop things like immigration reform and free trade.

Worse, since they won they election, I guess they are the vocal majority.

And that's what driving some liberals crazy.

You're conflating local land use, planning and zoning and construction impacts with broad national policy.

But if you don't believe that members of Congress listen carefully to highly affected groups, like displaced industries and those eligible for forms of trade adjustment assistance, you are naive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support....."

I don't know what you know about politics, but people who are anti anything are much, much more motivated than those who are content.

Agree. I know a little about politics, and I know that anyone who says they know with precision how voters feel about a specific local issue is lying. It's the great conundrum of local politics: are the 40 people who showed up a community meeting representative, or all of the people who feel that way?

Notice that in any neighborhood dispute both sides will always characterize the other as a "vocal minority" and themselves as the "silent majority."

How Nixonian.

Both politicians and the law recognize that person who may be particularly and adversely impacted by a project are sometimes due special consideration. That's why, for example, the zoning code or alcohol licensing regulations require service on nearby residents and may give them special party status. Otherwise the obviously limited number of persons directly affected would always be at the mercy of the "silent majority' who might enjoy the benefits but none of the impacts of a project -- a major highway or in this case the loss of park space for a pool.

Fascinating.

So, you are defending the right of the vocal minority to stop things like immigration reform and free trade.

Worse, since they won they election, I guess they are the vocal majority.

And that's what driving some liberals crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support....."

I don't know what you know about politics, but people who are anti anything are much, much more motivated than those who are content.

And if the pool, should it be constructed, becomes a campaign issue, the people who want the pool will be vocal in their voting. Pure numbers suggest it would be a losing proposition. Can't you get the hint after stacking the vote and still losing with a 30% showing?

If people want a Ward 3 pool, shouldn't it be in the 'heart' of Ward 3 and in an amply-sized location like near Wilson or at "kid central, otherwise known as Turtle Park? Hearst is kinda' puny for a pool and then they'd have to kill the field and/or the tennis courts. That would be stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support....."

I don't know what you know about politics, but people who are anti anything are much, much more motivated than those who are content.

And if the pool, should it be constructed, becomes a campaign issue, the people who want the pool will be vocal in their voting. Pure numbers suggest it would be a losing proposition. Can't you get the hint after stacking the vote and still losing with a 30% showing?

It was a Putin poll. You can vote any way you want on the pool as long as you select a pool option to support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support....."

I don't know what you know about politics, but people who are anti anything are much, much more motivated than those who are content.

Agree. I know a little about politics, and I know that anyone who says they know with precision how voters feel about a specific local issue is lying. It's the great conundrum of local politics: are the 40 people who showed up a community meeting representative, or all of the people who feel that way?

Notice that in any neighborhood dispute both sides will always characterize the other as a "vocal minority" and themselves as the "silent majority."

How Nixonian.

Both politicians and the law recognize that person who may be particularly and adversely impacted by a project are sometimes due special consideration. That's why, for example, the zoning code or alcohol licensing regulations require service on nearby residents and may give them special party status. Otherwise the obviously limited number of persons directly affected would always be at the mercy of the "silent majority' who might enjoy the benefits but none of the impacts of a project -- a major highway or in this case the loss of park space for a pool.

While this is true, when you are talking about a public park, just like a public school, the threshold is much lower, if not non-existent. You chose to live near a public park. If you don't like what the public plans are for the park, then move. But you do not have the right to be an obstruction to an amenity that the public wants for its park. It isn't yours. It is all of ours.

Anonymous wrote:"So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support....."

I don't know what you know about politics, but people who are anti anything are much, much more motivated than those who are content.

And if the pool, should it be constructed, becomes a campaign issue, the people who want the pool will be vocal in their voting. Pure numbers suggest it would be a losing proposition. Can't you get the hint after stacking the vote and still losing with a 30% showing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support....."

I don't know what you know about politics, but people who are anti anything are much, much more motivated than those who are content.

Agree. I know a little about politics, and I know that anyone who says they know with precision how voters feel about a specific local issue is lying. It's the great conundrum of local politics: are the 40 people who showed up a community meeting representative, or all of the people who feel that way?

Notice that in any neighborhood dispute both sides will always characterize the other as a "vocal minority" and themselves as the "silent majority."

How Nixonian.

Both politicians and the law recognize that person who may be particularly and adversely impacted by a project are sometimes due special consideration. That's why, for example, the zoning code or alcohol licensing regulations require service on nearby residents and may give them special party status. Otherwise the obviously limited number of persons directly affected would always be at the mercy of the "silent majority' who might enjoy the benefits but none of the impacts of a project -- a major highway or in this case the loss of park space for a pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support it.

For the 140 people who oppose the homeless shelter at McLean Gardens, there are 140 at Observatory Circle who supported the switch.

For the 50 inbound Eaton families who are bummed about lack of Deal, [b]there are 1,000 Janney and Murch families who are happy with the status quo.

Get real, Cheh is making decisions that are in net balance a positive for her support.

Ok, good. Then I want the Janney families to STFU about crowding at their school. They chose it, own it.

Mary, is that you? Because I've heard Cheh espouse a version of that line of thinking.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that a) the people who are at Janney today aren't the same as the ones that were there in 2014; and b) just because one suggested solution was rejected doesn't mean the problem is solved or the government is off the hook for solving it.

Anonymous wrote:"So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support....."

I don't know what you know about politics, but people who are anti anything are much, much more motivated than those who are content.

Agree. I know a little about politics, and I know that anyone who says they know with precision how voters feel about a specific local issue is lying. It's the great conundrum of local politics: are the 40 people who showed up a community meeting representative, or all of the people who feel that way?

Notice that in any neighborhood dispute both sides will always characterize the other as a "vocal minority" and themselves as the "silent majority."

Anonymous wrote:So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support it.

For the 140 people who oppose the homeless shelter at McLean Gardens, there are 140 at Observatory Circle who supported the switch.

For the 50 inbound Eaton families who are bummed about lack of Deal, [b]there are 1,000 Janney and Murch families who are happy with the status quo.

Get real, Cheh is making decisions that are in net balance a positive for her support.

Ok, good. Then I want the Janney families to STFU about crowding at their school. They chose it, own it.