Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Kabosh on Martinson is ON
You'd think after doing a bang-up, GENIUS yeoman's job on number crunching the budget, Martinson would be hailed HERO? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Instead, the glad-handing, do-nothing GOB crowd bent on kowtowing to sacred cows, TFD and TPD, are just gonna tear the man and his reputation APART, even in advance of the possibility of running for Mayor.
Martinson should stick it back in their collective faces, kabosh any notions of running for Mayor NOW, and keep the D5 seat hot.
The t-whirld kabosh.
Martinson should stick it back in their collective faces, kabosh any notions of running for Mayor NOW, and keep the D5 seat hot.
The t-whirld kabosh.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Kabosh is ON
Ya think sumbody might have it in for Rick Wescott, or what? First, he goes up against Kathy with some stoooopid letter about the AG disagreeing with City Attorney on BAD, Ballpark Assessment District.
Then, Kathy tries to pull a fast one, by announcing a non-run run. Whatever. Rick then mentions that he might hop in the race for Mayor. Whoa, baby! BIG mistake.
Now, he's accused of nepotism because his kid gets to be a cop. Boy, that letter musta really gotten under someone's skin? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Then, Kathy tries to pull a fast one, by announcing a non-run run. Whatever. Rick then mentions that he might hop in the race for Mayor. Whoa, baby! BIG mistake.
Now, he's accused of nepotism because his kid gets to be a cop. Boy, that letter musta really gotten under someone's skin? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
Top Ten Reasons Why Kathy is OUT
10. Hubby pulled da plug on the money train.
9. Chrysler going down, bringing down Vanguard, bring down the money train.
8. Plans to run for D1 Congress.
7. Federal indictments on their way.
6. Ballpark lawsuits on their way.
5. Her way or the highway just ain't working.
4. She didn't really wanna to lose to some punk-ass kid.
3. There's a financial dossier set to reveal she's actually a Florida resident.
2. She's just tired of working for free.
1. Biker Fox will be running.
9. Chrysler going down, bringing down Vanguard, bring down the money train.
8. Plans to run for D1 Congress.
7. Federal indictments on their way.
6. Ballpark lawsuits on their way.
5. Her way or the highway just ain't working.
4. She didn't really wanna to lose to some punk-ass kid.
3. There's a financial dossier set to reveal she's actually a Florida resident.
2. She's just tired of working for free.
1. Biker Fox will be running.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Rick Wescott on Ballpark Assessment
There are a couple of points that no one seems to be making about the ballpark assessment and the Attorney General's advisory letter.
Since last July, the Mayor and the City Attorney have repeatedly said that the assessment on a piece of property does not need to have a relationship to the benefit which the property will receive from the ballpark. They have said that all downtown property can be assessed at the same rate, no matter how near or far it is from the ballpark. I have disagreed with the Mayor and the City Attorney on that issue since last July. I believed that state law was clear, that there must be a relationship between the assessment rate and the benefit which a piece of property will receive. The less the benefit, the less the assessment rate.
Now, the AG's letter says the Mayor and the City Attorney are wrong. The AG says that the assessment rate for a piece of property must bear a relationship to the benefit which the property will receive. The further away a piece of property is from the ballpark, the less the benefit and the less the assessment rate. Or, if the County believes that the jail will not receive any benefit from the ballpark, then the jail should be assessed as a lesser rate.
In April, the City Council was preparing to conduct a hearing on the assessment roll and approve the assessment for all downtown property. The Mayor and the City Attorney told property owners that, if they had not objected last July at the formation of the assessment district, then they could not object at the hearing on the assessment on their property. In fact, the City Attorney provided a lengthy, written legal opinion justifying her position on that issue.
The AG's letter says they are wrong. The AG says that a property owner could object to the amount of the assessment on his or her property, even if they hadn't objected to the formation of the assessment district.
But, based upon the assurances by the Mayor and the legal opinions by the City Attorney, most property owners did not file objections in April. They were told that they couldn't object, so they relied on that advice and they didn't object.
Now, the AG says that the Mayor and the City Attorney were wrong. The AG says that the property owners could have objected at the April hearing. But, since they relied on the Mayor's statements and the City Attorney's opinion, they didn't object. Now, the deadline has passed and they can't object.
And, now, the assessment roll may proceed.
The Mayor and the City Attorney misinformed people as to what the law was and what their rights were. The property owners relied on that advice. Now, the time to file an objection has expired.
But, the Mayor is spinning this as, "The AG says there's nothing wrong and the assessment can go forward."
Since last July, the Mayor and the City Attorney have repeatedly said that the assessment on a piece of property does not need to have a relationship to the benefit which the property will receive from the ballpark. They have said that all downtown property can be assessed at the same rate, no matter how near or far it is from the ballpark. I have disagreed with the Mayor and the City Attorney on that issue since last July. I believed that state law was clear, that there must be a relationship between the assessment rate and the benefit which a piece of property will receive. The less the benefit, the less the assessment rate.
Now, the AG's letter says the Mayor and the City Attorney are wrong. The AG says that the assessment rate for a piece of property must bear a relationship to the benefit which the property will receive. The further away a piece of property is from the ballpark, the less the benefit and the less the assessment rate. Or, if the County believes that the jail will not receive any benefit from the ballpark, then the jail should be assessed as a lesser rate.
In April, the City Council was preparing to conduct a hearing on the assessment roll and approve the assessment for all downtown property. The Mayor and the City Attorney told property owners that, if they had not objected last July at the formation of the assessment district, then they could not object at the hearing on the assessment on their property. In fact, the City Attorney provided a lengthy, written legal opinion justifying her position on that issue.
The AG's letter says they are wrong. The AG says that a property owner could object to the amount of the assessment on his or her property, even if they hadn't objected to the formation of the assessment district.
But, based upon the assurances by the Mayor and the legal opinions by the City Attorney, most property owners did not file objections in April. They were told that they couldn't object, so they relied on that advice and they didn't object.
Now, the AG says that the Mayor and the City Attorney were wrong. The AG says that the property owners could have objected at the April hearing. But, since they relied on the Mayor's statements and the City Attorney's opinion, they didn't object. Now, the deadline has passed and they can't object.
And, now, the assessment roll may proceed.
The Mayor and the City Attorney misinformed people as to what the law was and what their rights were. The property owners relied on that advice. Now, the time to file an objection has expired.
But, the Mayor is spinning this as, "The AG says there's nothing wrong and the assessment can go forward."
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)