The Dems acted so poorly tonight at the City Council that I was embarrassed to watch on Channel 17. I am a Dem and you guys made me just sick. What is your problem? Anyone who doesn't believe me can watch.

Thank you Kurt for keeping us moving forward.

 

Yeah, I read about that over on Blurt.

 

100% awesome performance. And people wondered what the Dems could possibly do to make even the progs in Burlington look good. This pic in the BFP of Kiss holding his head in frustration is awesome...and perfectly offset by KwikStop talking to the cops and dealing with the situation.

 

I guess because the Democratic councilors consider themselves the champions of "transparency" and "democracy" they figure they can make such transparent ploys to derail democratic debate.

 

If they reheld the mayoral election today KwikStop would win based on last night's performance as well as the IRV implications. I am sure that is not lost on him....

 

I'd say if it reaches the point where the president of the city council calls the cops, his leadership abilities are called into question.

 

If you were there, you would understand why he called the cops. The Democrats were acting like obstructionists. Channel 3 has some great video on the fighting too.

Kurt was concerned that if he told Adrian or Brezniak to clear the room because they were acting out, they would not and he had a job to do. Besides, they're working on the clock. If they don't finish by 10:30, they have to vote to suspend the rules so they can continue debate.

 

Kurt showed strong leadership skills. A few Dems were acting outrageously.

 

Heil, Kurt!!

 

Interesting, Anonymous, that you would compare Kurt to a Nazi. It was a couple of Democrats that sought to stifle democracy. You have something against our police force?

 

Heil Dell!

 

The Democrats were simply using the tools that democracy allows them to use in order to sway an issue to their side.

Kurt was simply using the tools democracy allows him to sway an issue to his side.

All in all very exciting yet unusual display of just how great our American democracy is.

 

Alright. Enough of the 'heil' bullshit.

 

Why would the city council president provide them with the information they were requesting? From what I heard the agenda, which Kurt was responsible for, what a confusing mess that night.

 

Why won't Kurt just answer Ed and David's questions since there was confusion over the agenda.

 

Why wouldn't Kurt answer David and Ed's requests for information?

 

Those weren't requests for information. Those were delaying tactics. And they were attempts to interrupt other councilors. Adrian warned others on the council that he would be doing that kind of manuevering if he didn't get his way.

 

So...seems pretty unanimous that certain Dems did a great job of tarnishing their party's rep on multiple fronts (in person, on cable, in the BFP and in certain excellent blogs).

Prediction: some party shake up / new blood.

 

Heil Haik.

 

video:
http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/burlington-city-council-0

 

Quite the show of cross-partisanship, Kurt. You bragged all campaign of how well you got along with councilors and what a great Council president you are, only to be at the helm of the worst city council meeting in memory. Looks like Burlington should be relieved you were not elected after all.

Dems owe Burlington an apology.

 

The police presence was as undemocratic as Adrian and Brezniak's tactics. It will SUCK if the Dems get a majority and Adrian is elected council president.

At least Kurt (sort of) understands the significance of what he did calling the cops. Whereas, Adrian's self-righteous comments indicate he doesn't understand how discourse is supposed to work in a Democracy.

This is all very disappointing.

 

I just watched the video on Channel 17 and my take is that the BPD should NOT have been called. I believe that was way out of line. I do think councilors Adrian and Berezniak were being a bit over-the-top but after reading all these comments and the Free Press story I was expecting far worse. It really wasn't that bad. I think if Kurt Wright was more patient with them the meeting would have went a lot smoother. I know Kurt was probably tired after the mayoral campaign and the recount so I can understand how he would be frustrated, but, in the end, having the police there to possibly remove "elected officials" sets a precedent that concerns me more than I can express in words...

 

Ivan - with all due respect, I've seen the video and your comments led me to expect something totally different. You rather melodramatically overstate the situation, and by focusing so completely on Adrian, I question if you don't have some personal animosity in play here.

Their tactics may have been obstructionist, but that's hardly "undemocratic." It's simply - obstructionist. If you think they were being pains in the ass, that's one thing, but there's nothing inherently undemocratic about using Roberts' Rules to be a pain in the ass.

But to equate 8 minutes of parliamentary gamesmanship to calling the police to stand by and be ready to take away members of a parliamentary minority because you want them to shut up is, frankly, outrageous.

 

Odum seems to have missed the fact that Adrian reportedly said to Wright ahead of time that he would disrupt the meeting. That followed on the heels of five Dems effectively stalling and then ending the meeting early on Monday night. But Master Yodum has spoken.

 

Odum, Thanks for posting here, Sorry I didn't see this earlier.
I've also seen the video.

A) I mentioned Brezniak and Adrian in the same sentence. Frankly, I resent that you're trying to raise the possibility that my comments are based on anything personal... I've never even met Ed Adrian. I have met Brezniak and he's a very nice guy. None of this matters.

B) I doubt you'd disagree that Adrian and to a lesser degree Brezniak were speaking out of turn. I believe that is totally undemocratic - you just don't interrupt another councilor or speak without being recognized by the chair... I've never seen that happen in a BCC meeting, and I've been to some contentious ones, I can't see how it was justified here, (whether or not it's acceptable by Robert's Rules or not) it was disrespectful to the democratic process - and thus undemocratic.

C) Further, it seemed Adrian & Brezniak were looking for conflict, they didn't even try to get recognized before speaking... If Kurt ignored them and they were forced into these unprecedented interruptions I wouldn't have a problem with their conduct.

D) Is the brevity of the disruption relevant to the intent?

I stand by my original posting. Having the cops come was as unacceptable and disrespectful to our democracy as Adrian & Brezniak disregarding the rules of conduct and common courtesy in an attempt to run out the clock on the current 'lame-duck' council.

 

Berezniak on FPF...

FREE SPEECH AND LEGITIMATE POINTS OF ORDER By Sharon Muellers and David Prodell, Village Green, dstvermont@yahoo.com Sun, 15 March 2009

by David J. Berezniak

There have been many responses to and questions about events at Thursday night's city council meeting. I suggest that residents view the Channel 17 or Channel 3 videos of events to witness for themselves what actually occurred. My perspective on the events follows:

I had two questions to ask about our process on Thursday and, contrary to what was being assumed about my motives, they needed to be answered to clarify our rules before we as a Council could know that the process we were using to move a proposed Ordinance forward was correct.

Sec. 14 of our rules states "Resolutions passed by a previous council are not binding on a new council"

The Resolution suspending our rules and directing us to deviate from our normal procedures of sending a proposed ordinance to the Ordinance Committee for review (currently Councilors Shannon Bushor and Paul) was adopted on 02/04/08. (Resolution# 12.0 "Post Comprehensive Zoning Rewrite Issues" sponsors Knodell, Wright and Montroll. This council was seated 04/07/08.

Webster's" Robert's Rules of Order" Second Edition "the purpose of a point of order correct a breach in the rules when the presiding officer does not correct it or when the presiding officer makes a breach of the rules." .... "a point of order is made at the time of the infraction. If the infraction is of a continuing nature, Members can make a point of order at any time. An infraction of a continuing nature is: an adopted main motion that conflicts with the bylaws; corporate charter; governing documents of a parent organization; or federal, state, or local laws."

Because I am not the best public speaker I prepared these points in advance of Thursdays meeting in the order in which I was prepared to state them.

1. Point of order, the proper motion would include referring this item to the ordinance committee under our rules. The council president ruled against this one. This was not unexpected and lead to what was my second and most important point for clarification.

2 Resolutions passed by a previous council are not binding on a new council. Sec. 14 Had the council president followed "Robert's Rules" I was prepared to ask City Attorney Schatz the following;

I am concerned that the council may be acting improperly in voting on the zoning amendments based on the earlier resolution suspending our rules. As you will recall, that resolution was passed by the council before I was seated.

It is my understanding that a resolution suspending the rules with respect to a particular item is binding only on the council which passes the resolution, not on a successor council. Accordingly, wouldn't this council have to vote to suspend the rules before it acts on the zoning amendments without first referring them to committee?

My motive was to get the proposed ordinance referred to the Ordinance Committee. This is not a crime!

With a ruling in favor of my question it would have required a 2/3 majority to suspend our rules and I had commitment from enough councilors to revert to our normal rules.

Instead, as you can watch for yourself because we still have a free press in this country, I was threatened with physical removal by the president of the council.

I would like to thank my fellow councilors Ed Adrian and Joan Shannon, But especially Ed, for fearlessly stepping up to speak for me after I was silenced.

Sincerely,
David J. Berezniak
City Councilor, Ward 2
Burlington, VT. USA

 

Berezniak, the would-be bully, is crying crocodile tears. What a joke! David, you attempted to disrupt things, you interrupted, and you planned it all ahead of time. Now, because Kurt called the Burliington police (individuals you probably know by name) to stand quietly and watch the proceedings, you're whining about it. Take your ball and go home.

 

"Having the cops come was as unacceptable and disrespectful to our democracy as Adrian & Brezniak disregarding the rules of conduct and common courtesy"

Then you and I live on very different planets - and frankly, as a longtime activist, your planet scares me more than a little bit.

 

If Adrian & Brezniak were sure of the legality of their actions (they did plan ahead)....then why would the mere presence of the police "intimidate" them?

 

The fact that Wright was proceeding illegally and contrary to the rules meant that there was no assurance that the rule of law would be followed. Especially since one of the responding officers happened to be a personal friend of Kurt's. Go figure. Frankly, the contention that no-one should be intimidated by police presence smacks of classism. Rich white people aren't afraid of the police. The rest of us aren't so lucky.

 

I have yet to watch the video, so I'm just piecing this together from the various reports. Nonetheless....

1) It seems a couple of Dems were quite deliberately trying to circumvent a vote. And had been.

2) Calling the cops does seem a bit much.

That said, the fact that both sides are resorting to "well, it's not illegal to do this" is lame. Sure the rules allow for abstuctionism, doesn't make it right. Letter of law vs. the spirit of the law. Being in the minority for a vote means that sometimes you lose. But being pains in the ass until the council to be reset seems awfully snaky. And against the nature of the democratic process. Democracy doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. Quite the contrary.

As for the cops...yeah. I get Kurt's point. But, it would seem a well clarified "hey, keep this up and we're going to have a problem" was probably order. Maybe I missed that in the reports, but it seems he reached his limit and called the cops. Very Nixonian, and unfortunate.

All that said, this all changes in short order. So, people can rest easily knowing a new bunch of people are coming in and now you get to be mad at them instead.

 

If Adrian & Brezniak were sure of the legality of their actions (they did plan ahead)....then why would the mere presence of the police "intimidate" them?

That's another stupid straw-man argument similar to "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide."

It's intimidation because the president of the council abused his power, and by requesting police presence, he not only invited the officers but used their power to threaten his colleagues on the city council! It's a top-down move f to control; it's toxic behaviour, especially hypocritical for a former mayoral candidate who ran on his experience as a reconciler.

 

I would like to see a specific citation of where Ed, or Dave for that matter, violated a rule of the Council, or swayed outside what Robert's prescribes.

Whether Ed threatened to be obstructionist or not, he conducted himself professionally (at least during the course of the meeting, ie on the record), and that is how he should be held to account.

I find it quite disturbing that so many find it acceptable for publicly elected representatives of the people of Burlington to be forcibly ejected from a meeting of their body BY THE POLICE merely for holding dissenting views for which they have the courage to fight for, whether I disagree with those views or not.

 

Haile Selassie

 

"I find it quite disturbing that so many find it acceptable for publicly elected representatives of the people of Burlington to be forcibly ejected from a meeting of their body BY THE POLICE"

They weren't ejected. They just shut up and got scared when KwikStop called their bluff.

And JayV (or anyone else for that matter) , I ask this sincerely, what were they actually trying to do other than subvert the democratic process because their own view would not have carried the day? Shennanigans on both sides aside, weren't they just being sore losers?

 

To the Anonymous guy above me (do you have a name?):

Nope. Obviously you have not looked closely at the CCTV Channel 17 vid of that part of the meeting. Point of order/point of information is entirely within parliamentary procedure. "Subverting the democratic process"? "Shenanigans"? That's a bit over the top. Just look at the video and think about it.

 

Heil Bob Kiss. HA HA HA HA HA HAH AH AH AH AHAH AHA HA HAH AAAAAAHHHHHH

 

It's been clear to me for a while now that the will of a majority of the people (as expressed both in person & via various forms of mail) on this issue at hand (zoning heights in downtown Burlington) was that the proposed zoning changes were NOT what the people wanted. There appeared to be many "retiring" City Councilors that wanted to ram through the changes that *they* were in favor of though, and some Dems (who may be in the majority on the next City Council) were trying to delay the implemetation of those zoning changes until the next City Council was seated. In the end, these people were forced to lower the zoning heights under both pressure from the general public & their fellow City Councilors. This is simply the way democracy works sometimes.

What that loser Kurt Wright did was nothing less than draconian, and what the two Dems that were the source of his scorn were doing was well within the rules & their perogitive as City Councilors, period.

 

Ok, watched the tape.
Anyone who's claiming the Dems were acting in "good faith" is basically full of shit. Hiding behind "but, they followed the rule" is crap. They were trying to delay to get their way.

Kurt was lame to call the cops, agreed.

But the Dems were being stupid.

 

JayV and jonas seem to have watched the same "performance" but come away with different impressions.

So I watched it and agree with jonas.

Does anyone really think that they were working within the spirit of their own party's name?

Funny part is everyone come out looking weak. There are no winners here.

Rob

 

Yeah, Rob, it does seem that way. I understand using 'points of order' for good reason. And I get that the meeting proceedings were somewhat a-typical. But does anyone really think those points of order truly reflect some procedural misunderstandings? Everyone knew they were continuing the early meeting. Everyone knew they were trying to make progress toward a vote. Any suggestion to the contrary is silly. The points of order were an abuse of procedural rule to make a political statement of protest. I mean that not in the immediately literal sense, of course. Moreover, they didn't get 5 minutes into the meeting before it started....kinda clues us in to the motives.

Oh, that and Kurt mentioned knowing this was going to happen.
So, those of you defending the Dems actions: how does Kurt knowing about the planned disruption sit with your take on the meeting?

That was bad, inefficient government in the name of partisanship. Its that simple. Not exactly in the spirit of the new head of that party's platform of accountability and transparency. Although, as this post suggests, the motives were plenty transparent.

Again, the use of the police is pretty heavy handed. No question. However, as someone pointed out earlier, if those folks were truly in the right with their actions, the police should have made not one iota of difference. Be right, get tossed, sue. Make Kurt look like that asshole. But to suggest intimidation...that sounds like maybe they knew they were on shaky ground to begin with, eh?

Anyway, enough on this. Lets see where it goes.

 

There are no winners here.

At last. At the end of the movie Joshua has unlocked the nukes and run through every possible scenario. It concludes "the only way to win is not to play."

 

Well played, Haik. I just made a 'War Games' reference yesterday...

Also worth mentioning: it was quite interesting to see all those involved with the City Planning Commission (past and present) show up and urge the council to stop delaying and actually do what they're commissioned to do. That came from both sides.

But yes Haik, a bit of tic-tac-toe this all is, agreed.

 

"how does Kurt knowing about the planned disruption sit with your take on the meeting?"

Well, it means that he knew what was coming, and, even with that knowledge, he completely & totally lacked ANY kind of leadership ability to manage it without having to call the cops (who had no standing to throw anyone out of a City Council meeting in the first place!). This issue speaks VOLUMES about Kurt Wright's complete lack of any leadership ability whatsoever. A few Dems make a few points of order inquiries, and the entire City Council meeting becomes "out of control"?? Please...

Anyone that's actually watched the video of this meeting knows that Wright's actions were waaaay out of line and were a complete & total overreaction, period.

 

Mister Guy,

As I've noted, I DID watch the video. As did other people, and we disagree. Your interpretation of individuals who "make a few points of order" sure looked to me like individuals staging a thinly-veiled protest. About what were the points of order? The agenda for the night and whether or not they were continuing the previous Monday meeting. Soooo, they were truly confused? It was made clear why they were there, and what agenda they were to use. Moreover, the agenda items were the same, if perhaps slightly reordered. Ok, so that got cleared up immediately. So, what else to figure out? Nothing. Instead, they felt it more democratic to interrupt the offering of a potential compromise/solution?

Yes, Kurt should have handled it better.

But, my point stands: if Kurt had some inkling that what took place was going to take place, that demonstrates the intent of the Dems: to disrupt the progress of the meeting. Now, why would they do that? Because, as the points of order to which you refer were really a concern to them? Seriously? No, its because they wanted to wait until the new Council was seated. THAT speaks volumes.

If, as you suggest, those were legit points of order--that is, procedural questions--and Kurt knew about them ahead of time, shouldn't they have been dealt with ahead of time?

Again, if Kurt really did know of some planned obstruction, arguing that the points of order were anything but political demonstrates either massive naivete, or a willingness to sign onto counterproductive partisanship.

 

"Your interpretation of individuals who 'make a few points of order' sure looked to me like individuals staging a thinly-veiled protest. About what were the points of order? The agenda for the night and whether or not they were continuing the previous Monday meeting."

Hey, the Dems weren't the ones that were trying to resume a previous meeting when there was a brand new agenda for this meeting that we're all talking about. That was Wright & his buddy Knodell's doing...they screwed up...plain & simple.

"Moreover, the agenda items were the same, if perhaps slightly reordered. Ok, so that got cleared up immediately."

No, it really didn't...it took a lot of Dems asking questions to get the meeting started properly...adopting the consent agenda & moving on the other agenda items in the new agenda.

"So, what else to figure out? Nothing. Instead, they felt it more democratic to interrupt the offering of a potential compromise/solution?"

Nonsense, there were plenty of issues that the Dems wanted to know more about...Adrian had an issue with whether or not it was OK for this Council to move ahead with a process (that didn't involve an ordinance review by the Council's ordinance committee) that not everyone had originally agreed with (because they weren't on the Council at the time), and Bresniak wanted to refer the entire motion to that said committee (as did Shannon).

"if Kurt had some inkling that what took place was going to take place, that demonstrates the intent of the Dems: to disrupt the progress of the meeting."

Again, that's sheer nonsense. The fact that Wright knew some of what was going to happen at the meeting, then he couldn't handle answering a very few points of order without recessing the meeting and calling the cops (who, again, had NO authority to do anything to ANY Councilors) speaks volumes about Wright's inability to simply manage a special City Council meeting.

"Because, as the points of order to which you refer were really a concern to them?"

Why don't you ask them for yourself? Do you really think that everything that happens at a City Council meeting is for show?? Please...

"its because they wanted to wait until the new Council was seated. THAT speaks volumes."

It does to me...it speaks volumes about the few on the Council that were very, very desperate to ram through some zoning changes which were overwhelmingly opposed by the general public.

"If, as you suggest, those were legit points of order--that is, procedural questions--and Kurt knew about them ahead of time, shouldn't they have been dealt with ahead of time?"

Obviously you don't know how City Council meetings go...points of order & whatnot come up all the time from all sides. It's not unusual at all...

 

A couple of things:

1) "It does to me...it speaks volumes about the few on the Council that were very, very desperate to ram through some zoning changes which were overwhelmingly opposed by the general public."

Did we not see several members of the Planning Commission (both "sides") show up to say: "hey, we worked alot on this, so...time to get something done"? What you call "ramming through" I see as actually trying to accomplish something, regardless of the actual vote count. But stalling to get a new vote count is f'in lame. Just because some people won't be please doesn't make the potential outcome illegitimate.

2) "Obviously you don't know how City Council meetings go...points of order & whatnot come up all the time from all sides. It's not unusual at all..."

Actually, that this was a special session called by the Mayor in order to finish a previous meeting does actually indicate that it was kinda unusual. The idea was to finish something started previously. In other words, stalling is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the intentions of that meeting.

Your position thus far amounts to: "the Dams don't support the majority position, thus, its completely fine to abuse rules to get their way."

Yup, the democratic process at its best. Again, that a compromise was trying to be put into play and was disrupted shows how much the priority of getting a position defended trumps actually fulfilling to the role of the council. Just who was "ramming through" what, exactly?

Clearly, you see it differently. Fine. But arguing that bad faith political maneuvering is somehow justifiable in the name of "rules" is at best disingenuous. The Dems used the system to try to push their minority position. Its really that simple. And, undemocratic. Awesome.

 

Thank you, Jonas. Well said.

 

With you 100% on that Jonas. Is it me of did Cowardly Ed just cost Eli his election? More than a few people we reacting to the events of the Dem clowns. Too bad as Eli does not seem of that ilk.

 

"Did we not see several members of the Planning Commission (both 'sides') show up to say: 'hey, we worked alot on this, so...time to get something done'?"

LOL...did we NOT see planning commission members show up to say that they wanted more time to work on this issue as well?? Please...did you REALLY, actually watch the City Council meetings in question??

"What you call 'ramming through' I see as actually trying to accomplish something, regardless of the actual vote count."

So much for the will of the voters eh?? Nice...

"Actually, that this was a special session called by the Mayor in order to finish a previous meeting does actually indicate that it was kinda unusual."

Special session or not...points of order come up all the time in City Council meetings...try watching more than one & you'll see...

"Your position thus far amounts to: 'the Dams don't support the majority position, thus, its completely fine to abuse rules to get their way.'"

There was no "abuse" of any rules, and anyone that's watched the video of the City Council meeting knows that. As for what constitutes the "majority position", I'll say again...the will of the people be damned eh??

"Just who was 'ramming through' what, exactly?"

LOL...again, try watching the video of the City Council meeting in question to see the clear answer to your question.

"The Dems used the system to try to push their minority position."

Again, the will of the majority of the voters in Burlington be damned eh?? That seems to be a theme with you...

 

Ok, I'll try this one last time:

Yes, I did watch it. Yes, the Planning people did show up. Yes, they did suggest it was time to settle the issue. The ONE guy who said give it back was doing so under the condition that the COUNCIL had problems with it. Not 3 people on the council.

"Will of the people"? What people? The Council vote would have been the will of the people, no? Explain how the Dems actions represented the will of the people of Burlington, above and beyond that of the rest of the council?

So, the Dems represent a majority position in this instance? That's curious. It would seem that a strategy the interferes with the representative Council's vote is that ignores the will of the people.

But this is obviously a moot discussion. You're the only one who really watched the thing, after all. The video I have playing now of that meeting is fignewton of my imagination. That I'm watching Montroll raise an important question regarding "bonuses" for lots of less than 10K sq/ft isn't happening. I'm making that detail up. Oh, that and the 10-3 vote, AKA the "will of the people".

The people spoke, the vote was for the next step, not to continue stalling. How about that...

 

"What people? The Council vote would have been the will of the people, no? Explain how the Dems actions represented the will of the people of Burlington, above and beyond that of the rest of the council?"

Please...are we playing footsie now?? An overwhelming majority of people have chimed in on the proposed downtown zoning changes to say that they *oppose* them. Will *this* City Council vote the way the people of Burlington want them to?? That remains to be seen...

"So, the Dems represent a majority position in this instance? That's curious."

Only if you don't understand the above, which would require watcvhing all of the City Council meetings recently that have dealt with this issue.

"You're the only one who really watched the thing, after all."

No, but you're one of the few that fails to comphrehend watch they have watched...who knows why...

"The people spoke"

...and they overwhlemingly said *not* to change the downtown zoning heights, but once again, the will of the voters be damned eh??

Oh, and I see that Councilor Knodell apparently didn't even bother to show up for the recent, special public forum on this issue. Oh, who cares...as far as she's concerned, she's all done figuring this issue out...as she won't be on the Council anymore (and good riddance)...

 

Let me get this straight: the Council is, by a 10-3 margin, totally ignoring the will the majority in Burlington?

And you base this on who shows up to these meetings? Here's the thing, that's one hell of a leap. Those who are active and vocal show up at meetings. The "majority" tends towards lazy and apathetic. I don't doubt there are many people who oppose the change. There are always people who oppose anything. But to infer that from what is ultimately a small group who show up at council meetings, you are bearing witness to the will of 35,000+ people is, um....not particularly convincing.

Now, I am curious. Progs tend toward grass-roots, local control, yeah? So if that majority (by your logic) of Progs in Burlington (which would be a solid chunk of that 35K) really didn't want the increase, how come the councilors seemed oblivious to that? There'd be a rash of editorials, more news coverage, etc etc.

Without those things, it's hard not to conclude that the Council was in fact voting the voice of their constituents.

Again, your proof of the "will of the people" is some sort of reverse-Nixonian "silent majority" now = "vocal minority." Yes, some people showed up to voice discontent. How a "majority" that makes still remains vastly unclear.

And, if that majority truly does exist, Paul Decelles is demonstrating how such a voice can be heard. Get a petition going that SHOWS the will of the people has been somehow circumnavigated.

 

"Let me get this straight: the Council is, by a 10-3 margin, totally ignoring the will the majority in Burlington?"

Yes.

"Progs tend toward grass-roots, local control, yeah? So if that majority (by your logic) of Progs in Burlington (which would be a solid chunk of that 35K) really didn't want the increase, how come the councilors seemed oblivious to that?"

Frankly, I don't exactly know how the "alliance" between the Burlington Progs & GOPers on the Council came to become so strong. I think the main point is that they both really, really hate Dems. Knodell is at the heart of it all though it seems.

"Yes, some people showed up to voice discontent."

No, the vast majority of people that showed up to express their will said that they were NOT in favor of changing the zoning heights in the downtown area, period.

"And, if that majority truly does exist, Paul Decelles is demonstrating how such a voice can be heard."

Decelles hardly ever says anything at Council meetings, but, after the meetings are all over, he is very big at talking up a storm. The GOP in particular in Burlington is famous for trying to defer issues until an "official" poll of the people is done at a local election. That is...when it appears that their own will (the GOP's that is) will be circumnavigated by the City Council. Well, now the shoe is apparently on the other foot, and the they are crying foul. It's called being a hypocrite, period end of story.

 

Ok, we're getting somewhere. But there's still dot-connecting to be done in your argument.

1) You suggest that a 10-3 vote ignores the "will of the majority.

You've not, at all, made a case why this might be true.

2) "No, the vast majority of people that showed up to express their will said that they were NOT in favor of changing the zoning heights in the downtown area, period."

Right. I'm happy to concede that those who showed up were there to voice their discontent. No problem there. But once again, there is no evidence that those people represent a "majority." By your logic, we should conclude that the of 40% of eligible Americans who vote for President, the 51% (in theory) who pick the winner also represent the will of the majority. That's just not true. They represent, at best, the will of those who voted. And the majority, as we know, doesn't vote. Soooo, suggesting that those who show up at the meetings are the voice of the majority is just not the case. We can't make that assumption. You're only getting the opinion of a vocal subset. That's it. That's all. Not that somehow their opinion is not valid. But, we can't draw a connection between those folks and the rest of Burlington.

If you know anything about statistical laws and methods, you know that all we know is that there is a small group who have an opinion. And that's all we know.

As for Paul's motivation, I'm sure there's plenty there to be discussed. My point is that he's functioning under the assumption that many people want a chance. So, he's setting off to prove that. That's all.

 

"You've not, at all, made a case why this might be true."

Of course I have...remember all those people that showed up to voice their opinions against raising the zoning heights in the downtown area?? Yea, that would be what a majority of people in Burlington want right now.

Let's face the facts here...the record is quite clear about why these heights are being raised now. A few people in the "construction community" tried to point out that the way the joint-commission on this issue was calculating how high a 10-story building should be was "wrong" in their opinion. Well, as has already been pointed out in this very blog, there are already buildings of that height in the downtown area that are at least 10 stories tall!

So, a few in "construction community" (and I use that term only as a way to try & describe the few people that spoke up at a past meeting of the joint-committee on this issue) would like taller buildings in downtown Burlington. So what?? Who says that they were *ever* promised building heights to 9 or 10 stories?? NO ONE...that's who. Who says that the key to Burlington's future absolutely, positively lies in buildings that are 9 or 10 stories tall?? NO ONE...that's who.

The fact is that this is *totally* manufactured issue...manufactured by a few people that have the most to gain (money that is) by building larger buildings in downtown Burlington. It's not surprising to me that the "any development is good development" crowd in the GOP are for this, but I'm confused as to why the Progs on the City Council are for this. I really believe that they are acting on bad information that is being pushed forward by one their "leaders"...Knodell.

"By your logic, we should conclude that the of 40% of eligible Americans who vote for President, the 51% (in theory) who pick the winner also represent the will of the majority."

LOL...not happy with the state of democracy in this country?? Then get out there are encourage more people to vote. The system that we have is surely one of the worst systems out there, except for all the other systems that have been tried on the planet so far...please...

"You're only getting the opinion of a vocal subset."

I'm sorry, but that's the way that democracy works my friend...now get over it or get out there and try & change it...

"As for Paul's motivation, I'm sure there's plenty there to be discussed. My point is that he's functioning under the assumption that many people want a chance."

OF COURSE he is...because he's part of the (mostly GOP) "any kind of development is good development" crowd, period. He's a walking, talking joke...

 

I'm hearing you about the "need" for higher buildings. A totally debatebale point. Agreed. However...

"Of course I have...remember all those people that showed up to voice their opinions against raising the zoning heights in the downtown area?? Yea, that would be what a majority of people in Burlington want right now."

I still have no idea how you can draw this conclusion. Let me reiterate: what "all those people" represent are the opinions of "all those people." ONLY. That is, how you move from the opinion of who shows up at a meeting to a "majority" of Burlingtonians is a mystery. Again, the people who voice their opinions at meetings are politically active people. Americans, at large, are not politically active people.

My point about the 51% of the 40% has nothing to do with how I feel about democracy. The point I was making is this: 51% of 40% is....?
20%ish. So, 20% of eligible voters pick the president. You're 1) happy with that? and 2) call that the "will of the majority"? Its just the will of the people who were slightly less lazy than the people who didn't vote. Yes, that's the way our system works. But if you think that 20% of eligible voters truly represent the "will of the majority," than we live in what effectively has become a representative, representative democracy.

My point being, we'll probably never know the "will of the majority" unless someone goes door-to-door and asks. We've grown comfortable believing that the politically active (nay, those who get off their asses to vote) speak for the people. In terms of democracy, that's crap.

Now to come full circle: clearly, you don't support the height changes. And, some percentage of folks in town do not as well. Ok, no problem. Hell, I don't even know if disagree with your position. But that you don't support it, and seem to have an underlying "common sense" position on why to not support it, doesn't therefore mean that the "majority" agrees with you. Yes yes, people showed up and voiced opinions. But, unless each of them were designated representatives from neighborhood and wards and streets around the city, they were just individuals with something to say...

 

"I still have no idea how you can draw this conclusion. Let me reiterate: what 'all those people' represent are the opinions of 'all those people.' ONLY. That is, how you move from the opinion of who shows up at a meeting to a 'majority' of Burlingtonians is a mystery. Again, the people who voice their opinions at meetings are politically active people."

It's not just the people that bothered to show up to the City Council meetings. It's also all of the people that have expressed their opinions to the City Council through other means as well...e-mail, calling them, talking to them in person, etc.. Basically, only "politically active people" vote BTW. Do you really think that ALL of the potential voters in Burlington will bother to respond to Decelles' poll?? Of course not!

"My point about the 51% of the 40% has nothing to do with how I feel about democracy."

This is the standard whine from people that don't like the way our system of govt. operates, period.

"You're 1) happy with that?"

Did I say that I was?? No, and I also suggested that YOU get out and try & change that situation. I've encouraged many, many people to vote, but the sorry fact is that the vast majority of people that don't vote just flat-out don't care about politics. Maybe they should, but they don't. Also, we don't generally make it excessively easy to vote in this country...like having more than one day when you can cast your ballot or having elections on a weekend.

"2) call that the 'will of the majority'?"

Yes, the majority of people that took the time to vote. Voting isn't manditory in the USA. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I'm guessing, from the various comments that you've made here, that you don't really believe in our democracy.

"But if you think that 20% of eligible voters truly represent the 'will of the majority,' than we live in what effectively has become a representative, representative democracy."

We live in a representative democracy, or, as the Right-wingers love to call it, a republic. I have zero problem with that.

"In terms of democracy, that's crap."

Case in point...you really don't believe in our democracy, which is your right, but I firmly disagree.

"Now to come full circle: clearly, you don't support the height changes."

I wouldn't have a problem at all if the City had a real plan for height changes in downtown Burlington. Just adpoting a blanket "you can build to this large height level" just about anywhere in downtown Burlington is *not* a real plan. If the Planning Commission was given more time, they could have come up with a workable plan...like one that had a tiered system as you went further up the hill.

I also fully support UVM & Champlain College having their height restrictions raised almost as high as they could conceivably need them to be. If we're going to ask them to house more students on campus, then they will need to build up eventually.

 

Now were getting somewhere....

" If the Planning Commission was given more time, they could have come up with a workable plan...like one that had a tiered system as you went further up the hill."

Today's BFP talks about how this has been discussed/addressed for a year. How much more time is needed? What details are lacking? What, to you, defines them as having too little time?

"We live in a representative democracy, or, as the Right-wingers love to call it, a republic. I have zero problem with that."

So, you're ok with calling a 20% opinion the "will of the majority"?
Sounds awfully elitest.

"Yes, the majority of people that took the time to vote. Voting isn't manditory in the USA. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I'm guessing, from the various comments that you've made here, that you don't really believe in our democracy."

Read Madison. Mill. Fishkin. "Democracy" isnt about the minority who voices their opinion. Its about people being active, participating. Not sure why, to you, a minority voice seems adequate. That is, ANTI-democratic. Seriously. That is, unless your ok with what that minority says...which, in this case, seems to be whats happening.

 

"Today's BFP talks about how this has been discussed/addressed for a year. How much more time is needed? What details are lacking? What, to you, defines them as having too little time?"

Look, I understand that the Burlington City Council has an unfortunately long history of doing this verrrrry slooooowwly. IMO, they put off way too many issues in favor of just putting a non-binding question on a future ballot. The fact is that they are paid good money to deal with tough issues, and too many times they just punt on an issue instead of deciding something one way or another.

The last Council meeting of this iteration of the Burlington City Council was had recently, and the issue of increasing downtown zoning heights (which was wildly unpopular with the public at large) was basically tabled until the next iteration of the Council. This will allow the City Council & the Planning Commission to really do the work that needs to be done (get rid of the so-called "50-50" issue, come up with a well-thought out & viable plan for *possible* future increases to building heights in the downtown area, get the language in any proposed ordinances "just right", etc.).

Having "too little time" is, by my humble definition, coming up with a plan that has little public support...like this recent one did.

"So, you're ok with calling a 20% opinion the 'will of the majority'?
Sounds awfully elitest."

Again, either you believe in the concept of democracy or you don't. It really, really doesn't sound like you do, which is fine with me...this is a free country.

"Read Madison. Mill. Fishkin. 'Democracy' isnt about the minority who voices their opinion. Its about people being active, participating."

I'm not sure that advovating for the so-called "tyranny of the majority" view or that there are people that are somehow "incapable of self-government" or advocating against progressive taxation (Mill)...or advocating for an apparent pseudo-direct democracy system (Fishkin) is where the future of this great nation lies. I am continually amazed though at how forward-thinking a lot of our nation's Founding Fathers (like Madison) go it so right when they drafted the documents that govern how our system of govt. works.

"Not sure why, to you, a minority voice seems adequate. That is, ANTI-democratic."

LOL...adequate?? The fact is that this is way that our democracy works in this country sometimes. Like I've said to you many times before...if you don't like it, quit whining about it on a blog and get out there & do something about it! More people should vote & be a part of the political process IMO...now go out there & motivate them to do just that!

"That is, unless your ok with what that minority says...which, in this case, seems to be whats happening."

LOL...you really just don't seem to get it, and, at this last date, it really doesn't matter. Power to the People!

 

"LOL...adequate?? The fact is that this is way that our democracy works in this country sometimes. Like I've said to you many times before...if you don't like it, quit whining about it on a blog and get out there & do something about it! More people should vote & be a part of the political process IMO...now go out there & motivate them to do just that!"

My point, for the umpteenth time: your conflation of those who vote with "the will of the majority" is scary. Yes, I understand "that's the way democracy works." But, would you be so cavalier in identifying the "will of the people" if such a low number won, in opposition? You clearly support the dissenters. No problem. But to declare that to be somehow the will of the majority just can't be factually substantiated. That is, unless you somehow think we do actually operate the way our forefathers intended. At which point, the discussion is moot.

Yes, a few people tried to stop the process. Yes, they added one more vote and have stopped it. Yes, that's democracy. But only the will of some people. Your continued assertion that I have problem with democracy is amusing. The system, as is, produced a result that supports your view. Your assumption that it is somehow the majority's view is bewildering.

 

Yo Jo-Nas...you are trying to rationalize the irrational. Never works. Move on and just know your vote cancels Sir Guys.

Again...there are no winners here. Just people who like to fill up blogs.

Boo to the Yaa

 

Well, I suppose it would matter more if I actually had a vote in VT anymore.

Yeah, I suppose I'm done with this. It's clear partisanship is more what really matters here. Again, the outcome of the vote wasn't the issue. Its the idea that because somepeople spoke up, the mandate of ALL the people is being heard. Absolute (and statistical) nonsense.

But alas, some people got their way, so a sub-par system is justifiable. Oh well. Is there such a thing as the 'tyranny of the minority'?

Mr. Guy: enjoyable debate. You're clearly paying attention to the city and what goes on. That really is important. Certainly could use more folks doing just that. Keep on keepin' on...

 

"But, would you be so cavalier in identifying the 'will of the people' if such a low number won, in opposition?"

Well, that's not what happened here.

"But to declare that to be somehow the will of the majority just can't be factually substantiated. That is, unless you somehow think we do actually operate the way our forefathers intended."

Hey, when the Constitution was agreed to, women, blacks, Native Americans, and men without much in the way of property couldn't vote. Does that sound like a majority of the population?? We've come a loooong way since then.

"Yes, a few people tried to stop the process."

No, it was waaaay more than just "a few people", but you'll never acknowledge that.

"Your continued assertion that I have problem with democracy is amusing."

No, it really isn't IMO...your arguments against our democracy have been aired over & over again. I simply don't buy them, period.

"Its the idea that because somepeople spoke up, the mandate of ALL the people is being heard."

LOL...of course, NO ONE was ever saying that everyone was against the increase in zoning heights for downtown. That's not why the attempt to increase them failed at all. Councilor Paul was just responding the will of a majority of her constituents, period.

"Is there such a thing as the 'tyranny of the minority'?"

Nope, nor is the so-called "tyranny of the majority" a valid concept IMO. Again, either you believe in democracy, or you don't.