Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Snarky (but F***ing obvious) answers to snarky (but simple) questions
Earlier today, Jeffrey asked:
I happen to agree with almost everything E wrote in the post that Jeffrey linked (under the circumstances, I thought that the blown kiss was understandable), but the f**ing obvious answer is, transparency's champion is a bigger douche than Stacy Head. A probable answer would be Mr. "no more business as usual", but, I'll address that in a separate post.
Anyway, I'll just repeat what I said last month, I'm seeing more effort to embarrass the council member for what she did say than to embarrass Mayor Transparency for what he refused to say. Or to embarrass the media for allowing him to not say it. With the recent attention it's received, the local blogosphere might have the stroke to help some reporters and op-ed writers find their backbones, maybe even the guy who kidnapped James Gill, or whoever inhabits that desk on Howard Ave.
Like I said, I agree with almost everything that E said. To be charitable to Stacy Head, I'll merely point out the obvious fact that nobody should propose citywide ordinances from a district council member's point of view. I'll repeat what I wrote when the mayor went from posing as champion of the displaced to acting as demolitionist-in-chief:
Since different parts of the city were more heavily damaged by the levee failures than others, and different parts of the city had services restored at different times than others, one set of reconstruction deadlines is both morally indefensible and logically absurd. It would probably be easy enough to set different deadlines for different sides of the Industrial Canal, to try to fine tune it beyond that would almost certainly be unworkable.
Shortly after the deadline (the trailer deadline) was proposed, I took a bike ride through Gentilly. I'm one of Head's bigger fans in the local blogosphere, but I had to wonder how often she ventures out of Distict B. There are very few trailers left in my immediate Bayou St.John neighborhood, but head out toward the lake and you'll easily find trailers inhabited by people who are obviously working on their homes. Under normal market conditions, without insurance and Road Home difficulties, the majority of those homes could probably be inhabitable by June 1, but conditions are far from normal. There probably is, or soon will be, some need for deadlines. However, to set the same deadline for residents east of the Industrial Canal as for the rest of the city is absurd. Any deadline set for the rest of the city should be based on what's fair to residents between Elysian Fields and the canal, not what's fair for residents between St. Charles and the river, or even between St. Charles and Claiborne. There should be enough ordinances to combat blight in those areas anyway.
Besides... who's a bigger douche than Stacy Head, anyway?
I happen to agree with almost everything E wrote in the post that Jeffrey linked (under the circumstances, I thought that the blown kiss was understandable), but the f**ing obvious answer is, transparency's champion is a bigger douche than Stacy Head. A probable answer would be Mr. "no more business as usual", but, I'll address that in a separate post.
Anyway, I'll just repeat what I said last month, I'm seeing more effort to embarrass the council member for what she did say than to embarrass Mayor Transparency for what he refused to say. Or to embarrass the media for allowing him to not say it. With the recent attention it's received, the local blogosphere might have the stroke to help some reporters and op-ed writers find their backbones, maybe even the guy who kidnapped James Gill, or whoever inhabits that desk on Howard Ave.
Like I said, I agree with almost everything that E said. To be charitable to Stacy Head, I'll merely point out the obvious fact that nobody should propose citywide ordinances from a district council member's point of view. I'll repeat what I wrote when the mayor went from posing as champion of the displaced to acting as demolitionist-in-chief:
What in the hell should the date of Katrina have to do with the deadline to gut and repair homes? Seriously, should a deadline be based on when residents were forced to leave their homes or when they were welcomed back? Since houses without safe running water are legally unfit for human habitation, perhaps a deadline dated from the restoration of water service to an area would be appropriate. I'm not sure what a proper deadline for gutting and securing homes should be, but I do know that a consistent, citywide deadline of a year (from Katrina) certainly wouldn't be fair. Arguably, it wouldn't be consistent.
Since different parts of the city were more heavily damaged by the levee failures than others, and different parts of the city had services restored at different times than others, one set of reconstruction deadlines is both morally indefensible and logically absurd. It would probably be easy enough to set different deadlines for different sides of the Industrial Canal, to try to fine tune it beyond that would almost certainly be unworkable.
Shortly after the deadline (the trailer deadline) was proposed, I took a bike ride through Gentilly. I'm one of Head's bigger fans in the local blogosphere, but I had to wonder how often she ventures out of Distict B. There are very few trailers left in my immediate Bayou St.John neighborhood, but head out toward the lake and you'll easily find trailers inhabited by people who are obviously working on their homes. Under normal market conditions, without insurance and Road Home difficulties, the majority of those homes could probably be inhabitable by June 1, but conditions are far from normal. There probably is, or soon will be, some need for deadlines. However, to set the same deadline for residents east of the Industrial Canal as for the rest of the city is absurd. Any deadline set for the rest of the city should be based on what's fair to residents between Elysian Fields and the canal, not what's fair for residents between St. Charles and the river, or even between St. Charles and Claiborne. There should be enough ordinances to combat blight in those areas anyway.
Comments:
<< Home
I don't think anyone wants to let Nagin off the hook.
He's pathetic. So many of us take him to task on a regular basis.
He's also a lame duck.
I don't want to let anyone off the hook. It's not a matter of who's a bigger douche because all of the douches have got to go.
He's pathetic. So many of us take him to task on a regular basis.
He's also a lame duck.
I don't want to let anyone off the hook. It's not a matter of who's a bigger douche because all of the douches have got to go.
Everybody already knows what a schmuck Nagin is. It's mostly understood as fact. However, people seem to be uninformed about what a douche Stacy Head is.
# posted by 
: 10:19 AM
: 10:19 AM
It doesn't matter that he's a lame duck. It also doesn't matter that everybody knows he's a schmuck; in fact that's the problem -- everybody treats him like a harmless schmuck. As long as he's allowed to play dumb, or skip the dumb act and just stonewall, when serious questions need to be answered, he'll be able to do far more harm than Stacy Head could possibly do.
I'll start off by stipulating that I am in fact one of those guys who is living in just the Gentilly neighborhood referred to in passing, between Elysian Fields and the Canal. And while I'm out of the trailer and back into the house as of last Thanksgiving I realize there are still people in trailers in their front yards here (one in my block) as they work to get their house back in livable condition. The point I'd like to try to make is to ask why we (and we almost all do it) have to take the comments of others and "edit" them to make them cause for indignation? I heard an interview with Head the same day I first noticed her being taken to task for this proposal online; she clearly stated several times that the proposed ordinance would not apply to those in the working-on-the-house-while-living-in-the-trailer situation, and was aimed at those instances (which she said she has seen many of in her district) where there is clearly a family living in the house but the trailer is still in the front yard being used as "overflow" living space or storage. In a few cases she said she had knowledge of families who'd moved out of their FEMA trailer and into the house, but instead of calling to have the trailer picked up they'd instead rented it out to another family. I'm all for free enterprise and all, but that's a little much. LOL
# posted by : 12:17 PM
: 12:17 PM
The point I'd like to try to make is to ask why we (and we almost all do it) have to take the comments of others and "edit" them to make them cause for indignation?
That was the point I trade to make in that post last month. There was no criticism of E intended in either post, but all of the bloggers that linked to it were more interested in "Stacy Head is evil" than "this proposal is wrong." And, I do believe that "all" is the correct word in the preceding sentence.
But, when I go through your neighborhood (broadly speaking), I do see a lot of people that seem to be working on their houses. With the market being as out of whack as it is, deadlines should be pretty lenient.
That was the point I trade to make in that post last month. There was no criticism of E intended in either post, but all of the bloggers that linked to it were more interested in "Stacy Head is evil" than "this proposal is wrong." And, I do believe that "all" is the correct word in the preceding sentence.
But, when I go through your neighborhood (broadly speaking), I do see a lot of people that seem to be working on their houses. With the market being as out of whack as it is, deadlines should be pretty lenient.
Here is an example of the stonewalling by Nagin and Co.
http://tinyurl.com/3uhjvs
]When Bruce Eggler is the lone reporter in the Council Chambers what we will get it is fluff.
http://tinyurl.com/3uhjvs
]When Bruce Eggler is the lone reporter in the Council Chambers what we will get it is fluff.
# posted by : 6:41 AM
: 6:41 AM
I suppose I don't hate Stacy Head because she has done some tremendously good things in my neighborhood.
On the flipside, though, there's the matter of Stern. She appeared at our neighborhood association meeting, where representatives from both warring factions were present, and proceeded to rudely put down one group in an incredibly inflammatory (and unnecessary) manner.
That said, apart from her intensely biased "candor," I think Nagin is a far, far larger douche by a wide margin.
On the flipside, though, there's the matter of Stern. She appeared at our neighborhood association meeting, where representatives from both warring factions were present, and proceeded to rudely put down one group in an incredibly inflammatory (and unnecessary) manner.
That said, apart from her intensely biased "candor," I think Nagin is a far, far larger douche by a wide margin.
Cait, the Stern Tennis Center was completely off of my radar, but if Fanucci (James Singleton) is involved, something's up. I wouldn't guess that there be enough patronage involved for Fanucci (Singleton) to wet his beak, but I can easily see a trap for Head.
Can I assume that Head's on the privatizer's side -- the Picayune article didn't give any indication? It doean't matter if Oliver Thomas' mentor, Singleton, is involved, that's no excuse to act disdainful of people who disagree. First off, the burden of proof should always be on the party that wants to privatize. Secondly, it's a public facility in a poor to working class neighborhood that's probably experienced some gentrification (haven't been that way in years) and that borders a much more affluent neighborhood. Poor and working people have every right to be suspicious when somebody proposes a change to a public service in their neighborhood; the demographic flux that enabled Head to be elected can't help heighten those suspicions.
In a more general sense, I hate the New Rudeness that takes brusquesness as a sign of honesty. I don't don't know if that's has anything to do with Head's behavior, but too many people seem to think that polite people are more dishonest, or wimpier, than rude people. That especially seems to be the case in politics.
Can I assume that Head's on the privatizer's side -- the Picayune article didn't give any indication? It doean't matter if Oliver Thomas' mentor, Singleton, is involved, that's no excuse to act disdainful of people who disagree. First off, the burden of proof should always be on the party that wants to privatize. Secondly, it's a public facility in a poor to working class neighborhood that's probably experienced some gentrification (haven't been that way in years) and that borders a much more affluent neighborhood. Poor and working people have every right to be suspicious when somebody proposes a change to a public service in their neighborhood; the demographic flux that enabled Head to be elected can't help heighten those suspicions.
In a more general sense, I hate the New Rudeness that takes brusquesness as a sign of honesty. I don't don't know if that's has anything to do with Head's behavior, but too many people seem to think that polite people are more dishonest, or wimpier, than rude people. That especially seems to be the case in politics.
What happened at the Stern Center meeting? Can you describe the inflammatory remarks?
# posted by : 2:49 PM
: 2:49 PM
I wasn't there, Wintermute; you'd have to ask Cait. I was intrigued by Cit's description of warring factions and more interested in (former) Councilman Shakedown's involvement. It's to be expected that neighbors would be emotionally involved, but Singleton's involvement is interesting. Of course, Singleton's involvement doesn't make a dismissive attitude toward the neighbors acceptable.
Post a Comment
<< Home
