Be Careful What You Ask For
Trial lawyers will always tell you that you should never ask a question that you don’t know the answer to. It’s important for honest brokers, such as Salisbury Councilwoman Debbie Campbell, to be open and ask appropriate questions. When you have already made up your mind and have no desire to learn anything, a la Mike Dunn, it is best to heed the barrister’s advice.
At Monday’s Salisbury council meeting Council President Mike Dunn got taken for a grand slam. First came an entirely non-functional attempt to claim that the city was obligated to reimburse developers. After the first break of the meeting Mr. Dunn invited Mr. Smethurst, a local attorney, to speak on the matter. If you will recall, Mr. Dunn deliberately had council’s rules changed a few weeks back to prevent such an occurrence because Debbie Campbell had been so bold as to ask another local attorney to speak on an issue outside of a public hearing or public comment period. There is only one difference. When Mrs. Campbell did it, it was within the standing rules of the council. When Mike Dunn did it on Monday night, it was in direct violation of rules which he had implemented. Nothing stinks worse than a hypocrite.
Of course when Mr. Smethurst did speak, I don’t think that Mike got quite the answer that he would have hoped for. Mr. Smethurst explained that the city was under no legal obligation to reimburse developers for water and sewer infrastructure and that he advised all of his clients of this fact. Now Mike, Lynn Cathcart, Gary and the Queen all argue that the city has a moral obligation to pay these people. Of course this argument didn’t work when Mrs. Forbes (911 Camden Avenue) asked that the city purchase her home because of regular flooding caused by the city’s storm water management system. The city would appear to have a far greater legal obligation to her, and an obvious moral one. I just didn’t see her house listed as one of the items to be paid with the bond ordinance. I guess Mr. and Mrs. Forbes didn’t contribute to Mike’s last campaign. They’re obviously not friends of Barrie.
The next two bases were passed when council rammed through the tax increment financing for the infamous Road to Nowhere. When developer Kirk Kinnamon spoke to the issue Mikey was in such a rush to be a shill for the developer class that he asked Mr. Kinnamon if he really needed the Road to Nowhere. Mr. Kinnamon made the outrageous claim that he didn’t need the road. He claimed to have multiple access points other than the Road to Nowhere. It is my understanding that Mr. Kinnamon is prohibited by the annexation agreement from using one of the roads that he claimed he could use as access. It is also my understanding that the other available roads are blocked by steams and Mr. Kinnamon doesn’t want to build bridges. The final piece of evidence that Mr. Kinnamon was fibbing just a tad comes under the heading of “the mind believes what the eye seesâ€. If he doesn’t need that road and he doesn’t need that sewer transmission line, then why hasn’t he built any houses?
Following Mr. Kinnamon we heard from Mr. Keenan Rice, his attorney. Again, in his zeal to be a lobbyist for the parties that he was elected to regulate, Mike asked an open ended question. “Is this a subsidy?â€Â Mr. Rice’s explanation was quite enlightening. Of course he claimed that his client’s TIF was surely not a subsidy. I wouldn’t expect otherwise. His explanation of TIF’s that are subsidies was the fascinating part. He actually used the TIF for the “Village†(old mall project) as an example of developer “incentives†(a synonym for subsidy). For Mike (and other true citizens of Barrieland, synonym is a word with the same meaning as another word – incentive = subsidy).
Next month, when Mike tries to explain that extending the TIF for the “Village†isn’t a subsidy, I wonder what he’ll have to say about Mr. Rice’s opinion then. And remember something folks, that one will be for $14 million dollars. A million here. A million there. After a while it adds up to real money. Even for the Queen of Barrieland and her court jester(s).
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Since the popular vote that brought Michael Dunn, Gary Comegys and Lynn Cathcart to seats on the Salisbury City Council, business has been done under what Dunn terms “consensus.”
Consensus is not truly what the process has been. Consensus is “General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.” (Webster’s Dictionary)
Dunn and his cohorts recognize consensus as the wishes of the majority, without true consideration of opposing beliefs or ideas. They have an agenda that has no room for the contributions or cautions of others, and have put forth to the public that theirs is the only course of action worth considering, even if it is ill-advised by persons who are experts in their fields. This is seen again and again: in their profound lack of courtesy in allowing the public to engage in reasonable, measured discourse on any topic important to the public’s well-being, their mistaken predisposition that the public is comprised of blind, self-serving fools, and, most frightening and dangerous, their notion that they are an independent body, not responsible to the public.
There is no reconciliation in the behavior of the Council’s 4/5ths majority(Dunn, Comegys, Cathcart and Shields,) only the dismissal of the input of those concerned as not being in line with their agenda, an agenda which has and continues to threaten to put Salisbury in a legal and financial hole from which the citizen taxpayers, their constituents, will peer up from for generations to come.
To quote Dunn, from a meeting of a neighborhood association in January 2004, at which he was an invited guest, “We won, you lost. Get over it.” One wonders who it is that won, as it certainly isn’t the citizens of Salisbury.
Those who missed Bill Reddish’s “View Across The River” at 7:40 this AM should contact WICO and get a copy.
What an exposition!
Another issue I have with the puppets attempts to blame the TIF’s on “gentlemen’s agreements,” of past councils, that they want to do the honorable thing.
Well, the developer “gentlemen,” didn’t honor their end of the bargin, by not following the original agreement, and building what was proposed. Therefore the city shouldn’t hesitate to nix the whole deal and tell’um all to go F*** themselves.
When posting am article like this with opinions shouldn’t you be careful about how you potray people. When writing your assumptions about people lets be a tad bit kinder and consider their reasons for their decisions. When talking about Mr. Kirk Kinnamon lets understand that this is one of his many projects and maybe it isnt necessary and worth all the money to build the bridges. With the economy being as bad as it is many things have to be done away with. Besides is it really any of your buisness what roads he is building when he is just trying to do his job and provide beautiful subdivisions for the eastern shore. Why must everyone be so critical. Is this the world we really want to live. Can’t we get the facts next time before posting our hasty opinions. Thankyou I would truly appreciate my words here being taken into consideration. I’m just looking out for the feelings of our hard working Americans.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings but …
Why should the taxpayer subsidize the Aydelotte Farms development?
Yes, I know that the NE Collector has been on the drawing board for years. So what?
While the point of the post was not about your friend? family member? Mr. Kinnamon, he should have been more truthful to the public.
I don’t blame him anyway. If a group of elected officials are willing to subsidize a developer he would be a fool not to take advantage of the subsidy. However, that doesn’t mean that his name should be kept out of the discussion.
Cato:
I guess that you haven’t heard that the last week in November is “break the law” week for the Salisbury City Council under the Dream Team. At the Nov. 28, 2005 meeting, Mr. Wilber told them (”opined” in Barriespeak) that the rezoning of the old mall would be perfectly proper, too. That action was later declared to be illegal by the Citcuit Court.
Interesting how things don’t change when the Council is controlled by members whose ignorance is second only to their arrogance.