Let us say there is a school board member (don't get stuck on school board could be anything) that decided there should be a moratorium for 5 years on approving ANY charter schools on wetlands (don't get stuck on wetlands, think 'land not suited for development'). Even though there is already a rule against ANY schools on wetlands, if the board gets a super majority, they can over-rule the rule. A couple of schools have slipped through with the super majority vote.
The member puts her moratorium idea before the school board and they (almost unanimously) hand it over to a committee to be discussed and for a public hearing. However, we all know that there are charter school connected members on the school board, so the moratorium very likely might not pass. Meantime, while all this is going on.... The school board member with the moratorium idea decides in the interim, to okay a charter school to be built on wetlands. Her reasoning has something to do with that "the community wants it." The school board professionals who find land for schools are against putting this particular school on wetlands and have advised against it. This does not deter the school board member from her stance. So even though she is advocating on a position (a moratorium), she is is at the same time, going to vote in opposition to the position advocated by the moratorium.
What do you think?
19 comments:
Sounds like that tired old case by case basis argument. There is never any consistency in our local government. That is why there are so many people testing the rules.
The moratorium would stop the case by case, but it won't pass if this woman is not even willing to support the premise. She is saying do as I say, not as I do.
The moratorium idea is just a test balloon so the woman has cover for her vote. Her vote is the real test.
Why are you giving us this situation, what is really going on?
The moratorium shouldn't be necessary, they shouldn't be over-ruling their own rules. That is the part that needs to change. The woman is part of the problem if she is going to over rule her own rules.
The real reason is to limit competition and allow the charter school she is supporting. Once the moratorium is approved and then expires, they will all rush in. Just opens the door probably in her non-election year.
Well, one thing to understand is that almost all of the schools in Miami-Dade, as well as most of the developments and the airport are built on what was once wetlands, so I'm not sure if the prohibition really acomplishes anything. I'd be interested to know how many current schools or those proposed for construction have already been approved on sites that are considered wetlands.
At the risk of sounding like a republican presidential candidate...
You can't be a little pregnant. The elected official is either for a moratorium or not. If you don't want to be pregnant, then do not do what it takes to get pregnant. (BTW, do not use an aspirin, it doesn't work).
This particular politician must see something of greater value in going with the support of an item that she "opposes".
As a voter, I find this elected official to be wishy-washy and trying to deceive the voters. We are not stupid and she looks to be thinking that we are. We will notice that she is trying to deceive us by calling for a moratorium while she supports the degradation of wetlands. Trust me.
The fact that she is trying to look like a good-guy when she isn't insults all the elected officials that do the right thing.
Further more, after going on record in support of a moratorium and then flipping, I would naturally assume that she is
related to the project in some way (Charter school???). Or is she running for election and sees profit for her election funding by supporting the an activity that is detrimental to the environment.
Voters are not stupid.
Anonymous above...do we now know the value of wetlands to our water supply? We didn't in the past.
But that is not the issue here. This is a hypothetical. Wetlands is meaningless to the argument. Change it to mountainous or rocky. Just think of it as land currently not build-able maybe it could be a zoning issue. Then comment.
This is the unfortunately routine case of elected politicians voting against the best interests of the public. They use smoke and mirrors to make it seem like are working for the good of all when in fact they are helping a minority of connected people to make money at the public's expense.
Business as usual with many politicians.
Maybe I am too stupid to understand this. Why on earth would this woman do both? It doesn't make sense. Maybe the moratorium is a ploy. No, still doesn't make sense as to why she would vote on the current change for the charter school. What am I missing?
I have the answer, the woman is a Republican.
If they can get around the RULE can't they get around the moratorium too? I don't trust any of them. I would be suspicious of the moratorium. What happens at the end of the 5 years? Would the 5 year moratorium get thrown out in court?
This scenario is not making sense. There is something we don't know. Is the end of the moratorium a free-for-all?
By the way is it raquel regalado
No. Hypothetical remember
She is trying to have her cake and eat it too.
Through her proposed moratorium, she is attempting to pacify local residents who want schools to be built where the experts recommend and to support sustainable development.
Yet, she must have received some large campaign contributions to support this one project from the specific landowners / developers. She doesn't seem to have much respect for her constituents, but this is the kind of thing that could get someone kicked out of office.
I'm with Youbetya': voters are not stupid.
Your woman isn't logical. It must be Lynda Bell.
There is no consistency. How can you vote for a school and then propose a moratorium within the same scope. The moratorium is a diversion. It is to get do-gooders off her back.
This is the best answer yet! The proposed moratorium is smoke screen to make constituents think they are supporting what they want supported, knowing full well the rest of the board, or the commission, would never support an all out moratorium. Don't they call that grandstanding?
The constituents must put constant pressure on the elected member to vote as the constituents demand, or get voted out of office. It's called accountability.
The previous Mayors office was really good at this game of playing to the people (except in the end)...
They would watch the commission hmmm and hahah over a vote that was not popular with the public and then issue a mayoral veto, knowing that they would end up with a win-win situation for the mayor.
If the commissioners overrode the veto, the mayor could say "I tried...those commissioners are bad guys",,,
If the commissioners could not muster the votes to override the veto, then the mayor could say, "Aren't I great? I cared and won the issue for the public's best interest".
You always have to look to the hidden agenda. The theoretical situation is loaded with gamesmanship... And she is playing really poorly.
Post a Comment