Sprawl debate
There's a rip-roaring debate underway on The Iconoclast over a proposed development that will send Fayetteville sprawling to the south, including with a new park built over a former landfill of dubious safety. The TIF-hole developers are in on the new scheme, which Mayor Dan Coody supports. Specifics aside, the debate has parallels in Little Rock and other growing cities. Folks in Fayetteville really get into local politics.



Comments
I don't like sprawl...it's called annexation. Just ask those folks down in Bauxite who got their names on a petition they didn't sign. Those folks in Gravel Ridge who didn't want either city (Sherwood or Jacksonville) never had a 'none of the above' option when it was just GR residents voting in the 3rd round of voting.
It's even worse when lots of money gets thrown around...like in Fayetteville. Kind of like the money thrown around near Lake Maumelle. I wonder how much of that finds it's way into the re-election funds of our local poly-tick-ians. Judge Buddy isn't the most popular fellow around, but I bet he has more money to get re-elected than Phil. Phil probably doesn't have many donors (if any) who are Lake Maumelle developers.
So it's back to money. Maybe we should ask those TIF-hole, Lake Maumelle, and Dark Hollow developers to send us all a check, not just those who need to be elected.
Posted by: JStevens
|
October 1, 2008 05:21 PM
Appears that special interest are trying so desperately to push this thru while Coody is still in
office. Otherwise they wouldn't be in such a hurry. They think he's gonna lose.
.
Posted by: eLwood
|
October 1, 2008 07:30 PM
I voted for term limits, and I will fight to keep them and expand them to city/county offices as well. Sadly, that does keep the shrinking breed of honest politician from continuing public service in that capacity. But I firmly believe in the long run that the good outweighs the harm. That good is more citizen involvement, specifically they lay person, and less professional politician (Charlie Daniels comes to mind with Sec State and Land Comish). Lobbyists have to pay more to get what they can get. Term limits don't stop lobbying or take money out of the equation of influence, but it does make it more expensive. I'd ban paid lobbying...but I'm pretty sure that's protected by the 1st ammendment. What I would require is a website that lists each lobbyist, how much, and how many visits they made to discuss their business. If Joe Q. Politician gets fancy dinners over a dozen times by Company X, special favors with low cost tent rental on gov property, or nice plane rides in company jets, I'd like to know. I think current ethics rules require the reporting of these activities now, it's just not easily accessible (it should be). I can't buy any politician (too poor), and I don't like it when others try and succeed. That whole absolute power/corruption thing. Imagine the town mayor, school Board, city board, county quorum court, sherriff, constable, or judges if they all had term limits. It would be one hell of a mess, but I believe things would eventually get worked out for the better.
Posted by: JStevens
|
October 1, 2008 11:14 PM