The candidates debate was interesting Thursday at the high school. It was a chance to see most of them, but none said anything too terribly radical.
Actually, there was not a whole lot of difference between any of them.
One interesting thing that came up was the hospital. The county commission candidates all support it. They were not asked, so I asked later, the statehouse candidates what they thought, and they favor it too.
Gene Burr made an interesting comment, saying that he thought the location should not defeat it, that this was not a good enough reason to defeat it.
Just the opposite of what many are saying. Many are saying they are for the hospital but not the location.
I tend to agree with Gene on this one.
They have studied this thing for 12 years. They have reasons for the site.
No matter where it is, you can pick that choice to death and find reasons for a different place.
Also, I just dont see the big deal about two miles north of town. If you are on the north side of town now, you will be closer than you are now.
People already drive to wichita and even kansas city ... so ... why is two miles a big deal.
Burr, as well as the others, said this is a chance to invest in the future of Arkansas City.
More businesses will come and more jobs will come as a result of a new hospital.
Hopefully we wont let this one slip away.
There is the rumor that the commission will raise property taxes to pay the bill if the sales tax is voted down. I can tell you that none of the commissioners have said that in any open meeting.
Another interesting thing about the forum was who was not there.
All of the incumbents for state office were missing. State Sen. Greta Goodwin and State Rep. Kasha Kelley were not there. Ed Trimmer was also not there but not really expected because his area is Winfield.
I sent an email to Kasha, who wrote back and said there was something going on at the statehouse that they had to be at. She had asked them to try to find a different date, but I guess it couldn't be worked out.
She did send another rep to speak in her place. That was a bit odd, but ... whatever works eh.
Posts
22 comments:
I didn't hear 'I Will', what I heard was that its an option [not the only option] at the meeting I attended.
outside looking in
In my opinion, Kasha's surrogate should not have been allowed to speak.
Full disclosure, I am supporting Gene Burr but I wanted to hear what Kasha had to say as well. I was disappointed.
This is the third event Kasha was invited to and has not appeared at.
James,
you let people advertise their blog on yours?
just wondering.
I don't think anyone is advertising their blog. All I see is a user name and avatar (that's not even showing up on my computer). I see other people with user names posting and there is never a problem, Why now? So if this person can't post comments then why should any of us? Atleast they kept on topic and actually is posting about the topic at hand.
Anyways- BACK to the ISSUE at hand.... I agree that I was disappointed that Kasha and Greta couldn't be there. Both should be defending their jobs. I thought the "young people" NOT kids lol put on a really great forum and did an outstanding job!!
I agree that I was disappointed that Kasha and Greta couldn't be there
>>>
Yes. But they were doing state business in topeka at the time, so ... if they had come you could argue they were shirking their duties to campaign.
I think it was a legitimate scheduling problem.
Im not aware of kasha missing others ?
I have a question. I was driving West on Radio Lane and saw a whole bunch of Gene Burr's signs in the right of way of places that I KNOW do not support him. In some places, there were Kelley signs up in the yard, but Burr signs out by the road. Is that legal? It makes it look like he is being supported by people who don't wish to support him. I know that he is not asking permission from the land owners. Seems like a shady way to do things.
That doesn't sound legal. Very unethical no matter if it's legal or not.
Poster @ 7:44 PM
Wow, I'm sitting here stunned that the above post remains on this blog.....
I think you should be very careful before
you start accusing people of wrong doing, You just accused him of doing ilegal and shady things. You need to ask and get facts before you let your mouth run lose. That is a huge problem in this town. Everyone wants to accuse and prosecute before the facts are known. It obvious that you have a motive to slander Mr. Burr and we can guess what that is. Maybe it was just a shock that you have started to see a lot of Burr signs, Who knows. But what I do KNOW is that there is not one sign UP that hasn't been REQUESTED by the land owner, I know this for a fact. Mr. Burr doesn't do door to door hand out of signs, He only delivers to those who call and ask for one. I know this for a fact. So, If there is a sign in a yard then there was someone who requested that sign to be there. I know that I have a realtive that has both Burr and Kasha signs up. They might be leaning towards one more than the other, But they have both up. And that's okay, Let's not turn into the sign police.. Because if THAT'S the focus of the election then I will claim that someone needs to get a life... Mr. Burr is a wonderful man and how dare you accuse him of doing anthing like that- Shame on you!
"But what I do KNOW is that there is not one sign UP that hasn't been REQUESTED by the land owner, I know this for a fact."
You are very wrong! So either you are uninformed, or a liar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are just uninformed.
One of the places I mentioned was a business which is ran by someone I know, and they did NOT request anything. In fact, they were upset that it was there.
You will notice that I ASKED if the practice of putting signs on right of way land in front of peoples homes or businesses without permission was legal. Therefore, I was not claiming that he HAD broken the law... at least until someone can tell me for certain what the law is on right of way property.
But Shady, yeah, I'd say that's pretty shady.
Does anyone know if this is legal or not, or am I just gonna have to listen to more whining from Burr supporters (or family)?
Does anyone know if this is legal or not, or am I just gonna have to listen to more whining from Burr supporters (or family)?
///
every year there are signs that end up in places they should not be.
usually its an over-zealous supporter or something.
the property owner of course has the option of removing the signs, or calling the cops and having them removed.
they are not supposed to be on city property though.
i would be that neither burr nor kelley intentionally put a sign in an illegal place.
of course, they both may have supporters who get a little out of hand.
happens all the time.
no need to get excited.
usually you hear of signs getting stolen or knocked down too.. not heard much of that this year.
but there's still time :)
May have been some kids with too much free time on their hands.
From the City of Ark City's website:
13.28.040 Sign on street or alley.
It is unlawful except as provided in this chapter, for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, install or place any sign or other encroachment upon the right-of-way of any street and alley. (Ord. 1471 § 1, 1964)
13.28.060 Public property.
No portable or movable sign or other encroachment may be maintained or allowed to remain upon public property. (Ord. 1471 § 3, 1964)
http://www.arkansascityks.gov/index.asp?NID=47#ch1328
My understanding is that Ms. Kelley supporters put signs in peoples yards who were not home with a note reading basically, if you do not want this sign, return it. I know of two elderly ladies who don't want to hurt her feelings...That might explain the yards where both candidates have signs.
How lovely that now we've gone from slander to name calling! Your making your case, I tell ya! Listen, How on earth can I take you seriously when you have to resort to talking to people that way to make your case. I assume your an adult and that I'm not sitting here discussing this with a child... So, For the sake of a serious election let's not act immature. You brought it up as an issue that you have and I thought that I answered you with a truthful and honest post with the facts as I know them.
But, I won't sit here and go back and forth with you, I'm sorry but fights aren't won by name calling and not being willing to even listen to the "other side". It would just turn into a vicious
cycle of your side- my side and I've got better things to do with my time. I know the truth, I know
that no one has done anything unethical or wrong. The only thing your going to hear is me standing by the truth that Mr. Burr's signs are handed out on a
requested only basis. Call or email him and just ask, You seem passionate about this issue and you should go to the top guy and just ask.
I think if there happens to be sign up in a yard that there shouldn't be, The best thing is for them to take it down. Problem solved. If there was a sign up that shouldn't of been it was a
misunderstanding! And seriously understand that when I say that. And I would hope that the business that you are talking about took the sign down or atleast contacted Mr. Burr and had him come and get it, Because if they aren't supporting him then there is no sense in leaving it up and being mad that it's there.
This is an absolutely ridiculous point of conversation. If a sign was posted in error, remove the sign. Throwing unfounded accusations towards ANY candidate seems wrong.
@advertising blog
I assume this was directed towards me as I have small logo for my blog next to my posts. I have not asked or directed people to my blog. If James believes my logo or anything I have posted is wrong, he is more then welcome to reprimand me. I don't believe I have been disrespectful to James or the issue being discussed.
"How lovely that now we've gone from slander to name calling!"
You weren't called any names. Show where you were called anything but "uninformed". Which you obviously were, because in one breath you said that absolutely no sign was put up unless someone requested one, and now you say that the business that had the sign it didn't want should take it down. Which is it? Was there NO WAY a sign went up that shouldn't have, or were some put up where they weren't wanted, and they should be removed? You can't have it both ways.
I have no axe to grind, other than the fact that people should ask permission to put up signs, and I must admit that I don't like how the Burrs made their money for their new house.
You probably know what I'm talking about, so I will not dwell on it. I just don't like it is all, and I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm sure most people would not like it if they knew about it either.
I don't believe I have been disrespectful to James or the issue being discussed.
no complaint here
but id like to know who bytedaily is ...
:)
This rage about signs seems ridiculous to me. Yes, if there is a sign on your property that you don't want, I think the candidate would appreciate your calling to request it be taken away.
I don't know about the Burr campaign, but I do know Kelley and her supporters always get permission before placing a sign in the yard. However, there's always room for error in any process. Often a volunteer other than the one who talked to the homeowner works from a list and puts out the sign .... possibly an address was not recorded accurately, or the "sign placer" misread the address.
Let's not get so uptight about the small stuff!
^
I agree, Let's move on. The person said that if a sign was in a place that it shouldn't of been then it had to be a misunderstanding. If the land owner doesn't want it there then just take it down. But let's not make this a focus of the election. Move on already.
"but id like to know who bytedaily is ...
:)"
Yeah. Enquiring minds want to know.
C'mon, spill the beans already.
You first =)
Post a Comment