Thoughts on Veteran's Day - I turned eighteen in the spring of 1973, just a few months after the cease-fire agreement was signed that brought what President Richard Nixon called "peace with honor in Vietnam ." I registered for the military draft and was classified 1"H", for "Holding". As I recall that was because the federal government was uncertain whether anyone from my group would be called, but we all got draft lottery numbers just in case. I believe we were the very last group of 18-year-olds that ever did.
Six years later, when I finished graduate school, I had a couple of interviews with the Air Force, and though I considered it seriously, ultimately I chose the private sector, where I spent four years before moving into public service. I suspect popular perceptions of the post-Vietnam military played a role in that decision, however accurate they may or may not have been.
By the time the first Gulf War began in 1990, I had passed thirty-five, and it was another generation's turn to heed the call to arms. Other than relatively small engagements in Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama, the intervening years had seen the United States primarily at peace.
The moral of the personal history lecturette is to say that I've always recognized that it is purely an accident of the calendar that I was never called upon to serve this country in the military, and never had to make the kinds of sacrifices so many others have made, and continue to make on our behalf.
On days like today it's impossible not to feel a little bit guilty about that. Last February I had the privilege of walking the grounds of the American Cemetery on the shores of the English Channel in Normandy. It's a place I had long wanted to see, and it was a powerful experience. I thought about those 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds, and how much they must've been like my buddies and I at that age. And about how many of them never made it home from France.
This morning, as I left the local Veteran's Day ceremony, a tall gentleman in a VFW hat stopped me, shook my hand, and said "Thank you for your service!" A little embarrassed, I quickly said "I appreciate that, but I have to tell you I'm not a veteran."
"I know who you are", he said. "And I want to say that I appreciate your service to the city, and what you do for us."
While I will say that particular comment may have meant more to me than any I've heard since I came to Sarasota, it is much more important that I say to this gentleman, and all the others he represents, with all due respect, sir, no. Thank you!
Six years later, when I finished graduate school, I had a couple of interviews with the Air Force, and though I considered it seriously, ultimately I chose the private sector, where I spent four years before moving into public service. I suspect popular perceptions of the post-Vietnam military played a role in that decision, however accurate they may or may not have been.
By the time the first Gulf War began in 1990, I had passed thirty-five, and it was another generation's turn to heed the call to arms. Other than relatively small engagements in Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama, the intervening years had seen the United States primarily at peace.
The moral of the personal history lecturette is to say that I've always recognized that it is purely an accident of the calendar that I was never called upon to serve this country in the military, and never had to make the kinds of sacrifices so many others have made, and continue to make on our behalf.
On days like today it's impossible not to feel a little bit guilty about that. Last February I had the privilege of walking the grounds of the American Cemetery on the shores of the English Channel in Normandy. It's a place I had long wanted to see, and it was a powerful experience. I thought about those 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds, and how much they must've been like my buddies and I at that age. And about how many of them never made it home from France.
This morning, as I left the local Veteran's Day ceremony, a tall gentleman in a VFW hat stopped me, shook my hand, and said "Thank you for your service!" A little embarrassed, I quickly said "I appreciate that, but I have to tell you I'm not a veteran."
"I know who you are", he said. "And I want to say that I appreciate your service to the city, and what you do for us."
While I will say that particular comment may have meant more to me than any I've heard since I came to Sarasota, it is much more important that I say to this gentleman, and all the others he represents, with all due respect, sir, no. Thank you!
posted by Michael McNees at 5:08 PM
52 Comments:
We all serve in our own way but few of us give our lives in the service of others. Let us never dishonor their memory.
What a beautifully written thought on memorial day. It brought tears to my eyes.
Thank you to the city giving so much to make the Season of Sculpture a possibility on our bayfront. Without the city donating the land, lighting, crews and security (I am sure I leaving a huge amount out) this wonderful show would not happen. And the "honey I blew up the kids" sculpture was appropriate for Veterans Day. Thank you for serving our city and thank you to the Veterans that make our everyday life free.
Made me proud to be an American and also made me cry. Nice post.
Yes , Mike thanks for your hard work and that of all the other hard working folks and volunteers at City Hall I give my utmost appreciation and the largest THANK YOU ever.
Good Work on the SOS show much improved this year cept for one BIG glitch. Heres my take...
Lighten up? I call it Dumping Down...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but art lives in the minds of mankind. How does one define it? Don’t bother cause, Art just is. An object or statement that occupies space or time as society reacts to it and defines it in its own terms. The definition is in constant evolution. …or not?
Case in point the giant nurse and sailor statue on the Bay Front, which I refuse to call a sculpture because it does not fall within my definition of art. It is a shame that the organizers of the Season of Sculpture choose to include that piece. It has been getting all of the attention of an escapee from the Macys Day parade, which is what it looks like. Unfortunatly this monstrosity has been over shadowing the real sculpture in the show by drawing all the attention away in a sideshow manner. I am wondering where the popcorn is?
Secondly if I were a WWII veteran or if I were the author of the photograph I would be highly insulted. I have always considered that photograph one of the most profound icons in our cultural literacy and to have it translated into a grotesque gigantic cartoon sideshow, shame shame. That photograph, the meaning, the context, and the moment have always amazed me. The way in which the two people in this photograph that we all know to be strangers grasped the highest moment of universal joy in a simple kiss. A kiss, which became a mythological symbol of victory.
Ok, now I feel better. Moving on to the real reason I am posting this comment. Please, please, please, don’t forget to look at the rest of the SOS show on the Bay front. While there are a few other questionable items lurking in there, I feel there are several exceptional pieces of sculpture, which are wonderful. Some of the best pieces being made by a couple of our local sculptors. I do have a favorite sculpture which I hope will find a home here in Sarasota, in fact I am keeping my eye out for just the right spot. I think this years SOS show is far better than the last show minus the escaped balloon. I look forward to the next SOS show where I hope the organizers will stay on task and maintain a standard of fine monumental sculpture of the highest regard. Keep us on the high ground as it is only self-defeating to present the lowest common denominator just to make a splash.
Virginia Hoffman, Artist
Mr. McNees,
Could you explain how the City has now given Marina Jacks all controling interests in our bayfront park? They now control all eateries, docks, mooring fields and obviously parking. The City has allowed them to expand their docks on around the waterfront on the park side- obliterating the view back across at the City. I was there Sunday and was outraged to see now that they have roped off large swaths of the parking lot for Marina Jacks customers only!! Anything else up your sleeve that the Citizens of this town should know about? Maybe passes to gain admission to the Children's water park? What other City owned assets are you planning on dispensing with to private interests? Any new backroom deals you want to let us in on before we read about them after the fact? Accountability among your administration is a joke. Their is no accountability or process involved in the decisions at City Hall- just more of the same "let's make a deal" mentality your developer friends bring to your office. I also noticed your personal interest in you Blog site has fallen off since the heat over your job seems to have gone away, and you've run through the gammut of city employees to sing your praises. Guess after this message, you'll have to recycle....
Well that's an interesting take. As far as "back room deals" go, everything that's happened with Marina Jack's has taken place at public meetings with full discussion, on television, among the City Commissioners of the types of issues you've raised. That includes how the restaurant parking is being dealt with. So you may not agree with the outcomes of those discussions, but your accusations about "no process" ring pretty hollow, though I bet it makes lively cocktail party conversation.
I'm sorry it bothers you that city employees have spoken up on this blog in support of themselves and of me. There are a lot of positive things happening around here, what I think is most unfortunate is that one has to come to a place as obscure as this blog to read many of them. And despite your remark about "recycling" I don't edit any of the posts, and the only things I've deleted have been junk posts. Why in the world would I be worried about someone seeing what you wrote?
I am glad you feel like the heat is off for me, because from where I sit it still looks like the kitchen in here, which is the nature of the job, especially in our current environment.
Next time you're making that walk around Island Park, my suggestion would be that you take a couple of deep breaths and enjoy the view. But if you'd rather be outraged, that's your choice if that's how you want to spend your day.
Finally sir, (or madam), you have no idea who my friends are, so while your rhetoric may seem catchy, it's pretty wide of the mark, and more than a little tired to boot.
Now that things are getting lively I have a question. I saw it on the Save our Sarasota blog that you wrote in on, but it didn't recieve an answer. "So, if the City was endanger of losing the Whole Foods because of the extremely exacting layouts of grocery stores that required the loading dock to be sited where it is- what exactly was the City endanger of losing if the Porte Cochere on Central Avenue was not approved?"
Can you shed some light on this question Mr. Mcnees?
I haven't posted anything on the SOS blog myself, you may be referring to an e-mail I sent to Mr. Clapp, in answer to questions he had, that he may have posted. I'm glad you've asked the question here, I don't know it if someone asks me a question on some other site.
As for the Porte Cochere, or drive-thru awning as some would say (like where I came from) I will say this: The developer proposed it as an enhancement to the project, staff reviewed it and worked out the the technical issues, and eventually the right-of-way uses were approved by the City Commission. Clearly not everyone likes it - I will admit that when it first took shape in concrete I thought it was pretty scary myself. It is certainly improving as it takes on final finishes, so I'd say the jury is still out. And I know for sure the jury is watching closely.
With all due respect, Mr. McNees you didn't answer the question. What was the City endanger of losing? Why would the City be compelled to allow a developer to build out an "enhancement" in the City right of way for the sole benefit of their own project? Is it true that the street now does not even measure the required width for a two way street as the SOS Blog contends? Are you going to allow more of this type of "enhancements" when other developers want it? I would hardly consider the 100 Central drive thru awning an enhancement for the rest of us.
That thing you're talking about isn't an enhancement for anyone else but the developer- its like putting lipstick on a pig!
O.K., the answer to your question is nothing. I understand that you don't like the porte cochere, and I did say it was an enhancement to the project. Whether any others would be allowed would depend on the situation, but I think in general it would be a hard sell.
As for your metaphor, I hardly consider the 100 Central project, which brought the Whole Foods Market to Sarasota, to be the pig in this discussion.
oh, I'm sorry- did you think that was a metaphor?
Mr. McNess,
You gave yourself a pay cut to save your job, how about a change in attitude too.
You still earn a six-figure income and for this I think the Citizens deserve some humility.
Dump the defensiveness it may help to cool things down a bit in the kitchen.
Here are some hints for you to think about when responding to a frustrated Citizen At Large. I am refereeing to your response to the CAL who is obviously frustrated over parking at Marina Jacks here is a suggestion for a more positive response you could have made which would have disarmed the complaint rather than producing the negative exchange you did have. You may even make a friend even thou you can’t solve all problems when you show a noble effort people really do appreciate that.
Administration and Leadership Training 101
Apologize for the situation to the CAL, telling them you will be happy to look into the matter and have someone get back to him/her.
Get the facts and have someone report them back to the CAL. A list of Public Forums with dates and remind the source all meeting records are Public information available thru the City Auditors office.
Additionally you could provide an accounting of how many parking spaces are free to the Public in the area of question and how many are under the Control of the Private interest group.
If indeed there is an imbalance of Public Access vs. Private control over the parking rights.
You might even consider some alternate solutions to Public Parking at Marina Jacks, which are win/win for all Parties concerned.
Provide Administrative advice of Alternate options to the Commission for them to consider such as.
A. Taking spaces back for free Public Access; have the Commission ask the Marina Jacks resturant to open up spaces for free Public Access during special events such as Veterans Day or the Forth of July.
B. Make all of the Parking on City owned land equal access to all but install
metered parking to raise revenue to use for Public benefit.
It is time that all public parking is metered, this is long over do. The situations where private businesses have these valet parking, which take, up Public Parking is for the Birds. I say equal and fair access to Public Parking for all and the Public should benefit from the Parking fees not private Businesses.
When is someone at City Hall going to propose a program for using the Parking lots at the Robarts Arena and Van Weasel? There could be free parking for all people who work downtown with a free City run shuttle service. Parking meter fees could fund the shuttle service and the folks who work downtown for minimum wage could save money by not renting parking spaces.
When is City Hall going to put the benefits of Citizens At Large first on their priority list?
The Special Interest groups and developers have plenty of money and resources to fend for themselves.
Respectfully,
Lifelone CAL
Is 11:37's blog correct? Does the street out in front of the drive through not measure wide enough for a two way street?
When you refer to a building being a pig it is called a metaphor. Being arrogant is just not useful, if you do not like the project, then you just do not like it. The commission agreed obviously to allow the structure to be what it is and obviously the city is allowed to do what it has done. The commission does not always make the best decisions but they are human and do try to make good judgement calls. We deal with them and move onto the next project. The Whole Foods project is and has been a great project, bringing a supermarket to downtown and parking. It seems obvious the ones complaining do not live in the downtown core.
Mr. McNees: Your blog is honest and refreshing and I would highly encourage you to stay real with your responses. The person that requests some humility just does not appreciate the talents you have. They appear to have an attitude of some sort. I would also suggest to the "attitude" post that they should learn what they are talking about before vomiting their words.
As a Veteran I wanted to thank you for the Memorial Day post.
To "Lifelone CAL" - Thank you for some constuctive suggestions on how I might respond to a legitimate inquiry. As for my response to the anonymous posting of 22/11/05 10:29 AM, let me see if I follow your logic: This person, anonymously of course, makes a direct accusation of "backroom deals" and a "let's make a deal mentality" that I allegedly use to profit my "developer friends" by putting public property into private hands. All of which would be, by the way, not only unethical but also illegal. I respond by saying this is untrue, and point to the public record as evidence. Your conclusion is that I am once again too defensive.
I can promise you that when equally unfounded accusations are made I will call them out for what they are. If that makes me defensive, then so be it. I see launching a legitimate defense a lot further up the moral high ground than the launching unfounded and anonymous accusations of impropriety. I continue to believe such things have no place in constructive public dialogue, something I have made a goal of this blog.
As for humility, Webster's online defines that as "A disposition to be humble; a lack of false pride." I'll just say that you're entitled to your opinion.
Finally, if you knew me at all you would know that what you've said about my salary is completely off base. But once again, you're entitled to your opinion, and to hide behind anonymity in expressing it if you wish.
I'll ask the question again as it has not recieved a response from the City Manager. Is the street in front of this drive through on 100 Central wide enough for two way traffic as defined in the City's EDCM? The SOS blog not too long ago pointed out some serious discrepencies that the Engineering Department seemed to confirm in their correspondence to SOS?
According to City Engineer Alex DavisShaw, one of the road types specified in the Downtown Master Plan is a 20 foot section with two ten-foot lanes. This is the configuration in front of 100 Central.
Another point, regarding the reference to "discrepancies". I wrote at length recently explaining our technical deviation process and how it comes into play with downtown redevelopment. An approved deviation is not a descrepancy, it is an allowed and legally conforming configuration.
Mr McNees,
Thanks for getting back to me on the width of the street, but I remain confused. Looking thru your EDCM manual and the Master Plan document, that section odf street is identified to be an ST-60-34, meaning the speed limit is 30 MPH, two way street with a pavement width of 34"- not the 20 feet you have clarified. I understand that the City may grant a Technical Deviation as you have clarified as well. The part I'm confused about is the section that allows you (the City Manager) to issue a technical deviation from this section: "...Such deviations must be based upon review of a detailed study, prepared by a Professional Engineer for the Applicant, which demonstrates that the performance of designs proposed for deviation will perform at the same or higher level than those specified in this manual....". As it would appear you signed off on the Tecnical Deviation, could you confirm the existence of this required document, that you based your decision on, and would you make a copy available to the public? I find it incredible that there is a Professional Engineer out there that would attest from a liability standpoint to this 20' two way street performing better than a 34' wide two way street. Your other reference to my use of the term discrepency is based on Mr Freija's letter to the SOS blog that says the drive is "about 24' from back of curb to back of curb". This of course is not the standard dimensioning allowed in the EDCM street section. As his answer now appears different than the one you just provided, I would have to insist there is a discrepency. Could you let me know which street designation from the EDCM you're referencing? Could you also let me know when a copy of this Engineer's report will be available and when/where I may pick it up, and thanks again for your feedback.
Mr. McNees: I would like to see how anonymous is going to pick up this report since they are not identifying themselves. I guess you will have to leave it in a brown paper bag in the trash can at midnight.
Seriously, is the city a secretary for every dick tom and harry who want something. Obviously the blogger knows their way around city hall, so they should go and find it themselves and not waste my tax dollars having city staff do their detective work.
While this is sort of funny to follow, it is also scary to know there are people in our city like the last blogger and with all honesty everyone has a good idea who the possibility are.
I don't recall that I said anything about a technical deviation having been granted for the lane width on Central. A 20 foot vacation was granted to what you correctly point out was the original 60 foot right-of-way. I also said that a 10 foot times two lanes street configuration also exists in the Master plan. Ultimately we need to amend the plan to recognize the vacation of the 20', that section obviously cannot remain formally ST-60-34.
You may be pleased to know that we are now treating vacations very differently, and I personally prefer a ROW use agreement or some other mechanism that only stays in place as long as the project exists.
Thanks for getting back on the ROW issues, but you may be surprised to know I would be much more pleased not to witness the City officials giving away the tax payer's land- just in case blogger 4:13 cares to know, and yes, access to public documents is completely in the realm of what is referred to as transparency in Government. Mr McNees, could you please refer me to the street designation I asked for earlier?
I thought lifelong cal had some good suggestions.
Citizens insinuate things while questioning politicians or government officials every day …..in every town and city in the country. Fair or not fair that’s what happens and has always happened.
Well, in any case, it makes for interesting reading in the paper when you turn the thermostat up in Your kitchen.
To 10:50, I agree with what you said. It has been my goal however with this forum to have constructive conversations, absent name-calling, accusations, and making someone the villain. You're right, someone will want to do that (the daily paper, for example, seems eager to print such things), but is it not reasonable to aim for a higher standard of civility? And I might add accountability, something that is mentioned a lot here. Where is accountability for someone who makes anonymous accusations of "pocket-lining" or other illegal activities without showing evidence, as happened here, or who just repeats rumors to a reporter to get them printed? Here I will point those things out because here I can say what the standard is.
For 8:40, you need to clarify for me what you're asking for. I said earlier there is a designation in the DMP, according to the City Engineer, for a two 10-foot lane width street. Are you asking precisely what that's called? If so, I'll have to get that from Engineering, I don't know the terminology that well.
What an odd group of conversations after a Memorial Day post. Some civility would go a long way after such a respectful day and just after Thanksgiving. I think the Manager and the Commissioners deserves a lot of respect.
Thanks Mr. McNees- that is what I'm requesting- what is the Street Designation from either the EDCM, or the DMP that the section of Central between First Street and Second Street is now considered.
Why don't we just beat a dead horse?
I thought we were talking about a pig?
That was a good one - horse, pig....
The Answer:
I'm told that segment if re-labeled would be considered ST 20-20.
"Obsessed" did use a metaphor about putting lipstick on a pig but my metaphor was about "obsessed" needing the exact details of a short street with portions vacated.
Thank God we got to the bottom of that one.
Amen
mclark wrote:
"What is not respected is the ones that take everything personal and make it personal by attacking those in city hall, developers and business people downtown. This is what some would call racism and it should be identified and not tolerated."
When did city employee become a race? and developer and downtown business people? What do you call these races?
Mr City Manager,
If you want to lead, it should be by example. Your response at 5:59 was inappropriate regardless of whether you agree with the responses being brought up at your blog site (it was your choice to institute such a site to begin with). Your defensive attitude, as another blogger previously identified here does not serve you or the position you hold. While some will always sing your praises, you must except that some will use this site to vent their frustrations and request information (as you previously indicated was the purpose to begin with). There was little served by your quip, and I disappointed by one that claims to desire respect.
There are very few things around here that we don't find a way to laugh about in one way or another. Often that includes me! Perhaps you find humor to be an inappropriate leadership technique, I believe it to be not only appropriate but a darn good way to keep things in perspective, which I don't believe has anything at all to do with "defensiveness".
For all of the talk here lately of the perceived "heat in the kitchen", we try to have fun as we work here at City Hall. We'll just have to disagree on this one.
Just when you thought you were finished -hi, it's me again. Thanks for getting back to me on the street designation, but is this narrow road going to be capable of allowing buses and trucks to move through without blocking oncoming traffic?
Mr. McNees: That was funny and not at anyone's expense.
If someone does not find it a little funny the line of questions and accusations made on this blog then they need to relax. I found it very funny someone had to find out the technical name of a certain road.
I would like to know, what now? The blogger has left us hanging in suspense of the next drama question, like, why was the line drawn down the middle of the road and who signed off on it?
Of course 9:47 arrived again, as scheduled with another question. Could the person just get to the point and ask all the questions at once!
Buses and trucks... I can't say I know definitively that two large trucks or buses could pass through that stretch, I know for sure it would be slowly. We do have streets this width in other parts of the city.
Better answer - I just drove the section of Central Avenue that we've been talking about, and the answer is that yes, buses and trucks will pass without impeding oncoming traffic. Easily.
So, let me get this straight. You said earier that the City was actually under no danger of losing anything if it disallowed the Porte Cochere- thus preserving the Public's right of way in front of the new 100 Central Condominium complex, but decided that this enhancement, as you refer to it, would be granted. Right of way agreements and/or technical deviations would be approved for a part of a developer's building that would extend out into the middle of a City street for a use that is of no public benefit and would be strictly an amenity (or enhancement as you refer to it) for the Developer and the ability to sell his condominiums.
The new street does not conform to either the City's own EDCM or the approved Downtown Master Plan designation for the Level of Service for that portion of Central Avenue. The width of the street is the absolute minimum allowed by City codes for two way traffic and refers to the designation as a residential street. That the City had not even studied the effects on such a narrowing of the road prior to approval by the City Commission as to the ability for commercial and private traffic to safely traverse the street until you just ran out to check on it at lunch time? You said in the email that appeared on the SOS blog about the porte cochere issue "...I must say that the City Engineering Department fought very hard to preserve adequate function of the facilities that would eventually be built. Of course whether or not we accomplished that is a subjective question, which we will all have to judge for ourselves." I beg to differ with you Mr. City Manager- this is not an issue that we should have had to "judge for ouselves" as to whether it was appropriate and adequate. It was not- codes are not subjective- unless we are speaking of a double standard being administered by the City. Should the Citizen's of this City be preparing ourselves for more of this type of behavior from your administration and our elected officials- make it up as we go along and hope nobody pays attention?
This sort of decison making process being exhibited by the City is the very reason many are alarmed at the method (or lack of)at which the City makes decisions without public input or objective review prior to allowing such conditions to be built. The City should not have to wonder if the public interest and safety is actually being preserved until after the concrete and pretty finishes have been laid. That was simply irresponsible- plain and simple.
I want the Commissioners to know that the two projects being completed on Central and 1st are great and a huge enhancement over what was there a few years ago. Thank you for having the vision to move forward and get the city active and exciting again. I only liked the Porte whatever recently but after reading the last posts, I have learned to love it. And I live downtown, eat at whole foods, park in the garage and shop the galleries downtown.
I beg you Mr. McNees, do not spend any more time on this line of questioning. I hate to see my tax dollars going to this kind of work.
To 3:54,
I too live, work and play downtown-probably alot longer than you. I am not against the development that is happening- only elements of it and the lack of process and forthought that appear to be taking place among some City officials with regard to the public airspace, and right of ways that seem to be dealt out willy nilly. So I believe it is something that deserves a respons thank you
-A longtime downtown local.
Whoa there... an awful lot of words were just attributed to me that I didn't say (or type). The statement that we are making these things up as we go along is absurd. As I have said before, processes exist for the granting of right-of-way vacations, encroachment agreements, and technical deviations, processes which were neither invented nor ignored by my administration.
Next, your statement that the City "had not even studied the effects on such a narrowing of the road prior to approval by the City Commission as to the ability for commercial and private traffic to safely traverse the street until you just ran out to check on it at lunch time" is well beyond absurd. I drove by there today to be able to answer directly something that I already felt was true but couldn't say I had personally measured. The processes I mentioned above certainly included detailed staff review, and I suspect you already know that.
You also lifted one paragraph from a long email I sent to Mr. Dick Clapp regarding the downtown redevelopment process. If you believe that process is an exact science with no subjectivity or judgement calls to be made, then you have quite obviously never done this kind of work. Our processes clearly allow for these types of judgement calls - they are essential!
Clearly you are unhappy with the outcome of some of these processes, in particular those that allowed for the configuration of the street west of the 100 Central project. For goodness sake by now there are people who have been dead for years who can figure that out. But the continuous effort to call people names, suggest that there are improprieties, or claim that there was no process just because the process didn't yield the result you desired is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and on top of that just not very nice.
THERE - now that I got that off my chest, I appreciated the prior suggestion, but I will continue to answer whatever questions are asked as best I can. Don't worry too much about your tax dollars, I write many if not most of these posts on my own time, not the City's. So on we blog!
Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the
fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel in order to be tough.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President
The person that blogged this comment cannot be as out of touch as they appear, "lack of process and forethought that appear to be taking place among some City officials with regard to the public airspace, and right of ways that seem to be dealt out willy nilly."
Nothing of this magnitude gets done by the city commission without a lot public process and staff work.
Just because the person complaining at this time did not take the time to participate or does not like it does not mean the city did it in an inappropriate way and without process.
I like what the President had to say.
Mr. McNees you are a good man and thank you for aswering the questions.
Interesting comment made last night by Charlseston Mayor Joe Riley about Porte Cocheres- don't you think?
Give us a break. For the money you're paid your "service" is no sacrifice.
And certainly nothing comparable to the fellows working the City Sewage Treatment plant for eight ot ten bucks an hour much less those who stood up and enlisted during those conflicts you mentioned for eighty bucks a month. We all weren't drafted.
Excuse me? I'm not sure I understand the reference, because nobody that I know of claimed on this blog they had sacrificed, myself included. That in fact was the point of the piece I wrote, in order to give a personal thank you to those who stood up to serve.
Post a Comment
<< Home