Bubba wrote on May 21, 2008 9:30 PM:
" Bubba says "ben over ratepayers cus you gonna get it"! "
Homer wrote on May 21, 2008 9:19 PM:
" All I can say is, I can see it now the poor ratepayers are going to get hosed by the developers and special intersts and the Council isnt going to do a thing about it. "
Concerned wrote on May 21, 2008 9:16 PM:
" To ML I may sound like an idiot, lets dee if you are one, tell us all just what I am PALNIN WRONG ABOUT?. Being close to something and actually knowing somehting are two mutually exclusive events. I cant wait for your response. "
Larry wrote on May 19, 2008 7:55 PM:
" I guess if you want developers, real estate agents, building material retailers....some campaign contributors, "calling the shots", than yeah thats all ok but, what about the average working voter? The fact they are stating population growth has not been as predicted, hardens the argument that developers should pay SDC's. If development of retail, commercial and such has slowed down here, I will swallow my eye. Therefore, as an example, a Fire hydrant was recently installed on East Lane because of DEVELOPMENT. A small example but, WHO exactly paid for that hydrant? A developer, or the taxpayers? Another example, is retail development creating traffic demand for a new traffic signal. Should Mr. Modulator who does not drive but lives and votes help pay for the signal or should Barry P Developman pay for the signal? "
M.L.-Ontario wrote on May 19, 2008 2:02 PM:
" 'Concerned,' I know you think you're the expert here, but I've been close to this thing from the very beginning, and you're just wrong. Ill-informed, distrustful, disrespectful, and JUST PLAIN WRONG. The council, who I'm sure are also pretty sick of this project, will decide what to do with the recommendation, so it's out of the committee's hands. They can sleep well, knowing that they were as thorough and forward-thinking as possible. And 'Concerned,' if you're going to go to the trouble of posting something crude, please take the time to spell it correctly. You sound like an i-d-i-o-t. "
Concerned wrote on May 17, 2008 5:12 PM:
" To ML your nievity is disconsetring to say the least, pull your head out before you kickied in the @$$ "
Life of riley wrote on May 16, 2008 6:53 AM:
" To ML, I think Concerned meant that as a massive insult. "
M. L.- Ontario wrote on May 15, 2008 2:38 PM:
" This so typical. The people who don't participate flapping their mouths and complaining about the people who do. That public works committee has slogged through countless hours of facts and figures, trying to come up with a system that is fair and effective. To call them self-serving is a massive insult. Self-serving would be to make a quick decision,toss the data in the dumpster,and go home to their wives and children. You need people on that committee who understand construction, construction costs, and how development works. Most of us wouldn't have had a clue about how to proceed. Whether the council accepts the final plan or not, I appreciate these citizens and their committment to completing this job. "
Concerned wrote on May 15, 2008 11:18 AM:
" The cost of new development should not have anything to do with population projections. New development should pay their fair share of our transportaion system, wastewater system and water system, who cares what our populaion is or isnt? It appears to me this committee is very self serving and I cant believe this Council continues to look to them for a recomnedation on this issue. As rate payers we need to elect Councilors who will look out for the majority, not the special interest groups. "
Cool Hand Luke wrote on May 15, 2008 11:13 AM:
" And this woudl be the same Public Works Committee that recomeded the Council adopt the Master plans that they are now calling flawed. seems to me we have a credabilty problem here? Or maybe they are just incompetant? "
BS wrote on May 15, 2008 8:03 AM:
" And if you believe all of that BS I have a igloo in Florida I would like sell to you. "
Life of Riley wrote on May 15, 2008 6:57 AM:
" I have waited to see if the explanation you have in this blog would appear in the paper. My hope was that the Argus would correct the wrong impression when editorial staff suggested that land purchased out of the Public Works fund could be declared surplus and sold to support the General Fund. Ontario has some tough decisions to make and to have the Argus putting out information that is incorrect does not help the citizens of Ontario. I have given up on the Argus actually trying to report both sides of a story. I still have a little hope it will at least not allow the wrong information it prints to go uncorrected. "
Jessica Keller wrote on May 8, 2008 9:14 AM:
" While the Argus Observer was admonished by Councilman Dan Cummings during the meeting, contrary to what he said, the Argus Observer did not overstep its boundaries regarding an executive session. The media is allowed to follow up on information obtained from executive session afterward, which the Argus did, receiving confirmation from a city official. Nor was that information, later used in an editorial printed Sunday, anything that wasn't a matter of public record, easily obtained through public documents. That said, the information, later used in Sunday's editorial, did not pertain at all to the City Council's executive session as it was used in a different context. The information in question was the city has about $3 million in surplus property — land that can be declared surplus and sold should elected leaders choose. It was used as a starting point for an idea the Argus felt city officials should consider and determine whether it was possible — selling some surplus property and using the funds to build a spray park to help make the Aquatic Center self-sustaining. The Argus never presented it as a viable solution,as Councilor Cummings maintains it is not. Therefore, the Argus did not print incorrect information, nor information obtained without following proper channels. The Argus Observer takes very seriously its duty of providing the body politic with both accurate information and thoughtful ideas to open up public debate and conversation in the community. Thank you for your interest.
Jessica Keller
Argus Observer
News Editor "
life of Riley wrote on May 7, 2008 4:16 PM:
" Whoa there! Wasn’t there more going on at the Council meeting than this? I seem to recall that the Argus was admonished by a Council member for printing information they had received from an executive session? Then to make matters worse, the Argus didn’t bother to follow up on the facts and printed an erroneous conclusion based on this information. Way to protect the body politic. "