Bandon is dark enough; it is one of the darkest cities on the Oregon Coast, so why would we allow the Bandon City Council to pass an Outdoor Lighting Ordinance?
STOP THE LIGHTING ORDINANCE!!!
5.B.2 Ordinance 1594 – Outdoor Lighting Regulations
We are going to put this new ordinance up for Referendum and you can help.
If you want to volunteer to get signatures for this petition please notify me at [email protected] or
call 541-347-9942.
The name of our committee is "The Committee to Keep the Lights ON in Bandon." It’s catchy, huh?
The lighting atmosphere is perfectly fine in small town Bandon and there is no need for more city regulations. The
Dark/Starry Skies ordinance deals with much more than just the direction of light, conservation, or the consideration for neighbors or wildlife. I have read the ordinance, but unlike the Bandon city council, I can comprehend the
ramifications of these new intrusive regulations. Of course, nobody knows what unintended consequence will occur after this over-reaching law is passed. Unintended consequences never seem to be the concern of politicians who want to create regulations for the pursuit of leftist ideology.
Basically, the problem is that this lighting ordinance gives the city total authority to tell property owners what kind of lighting they can use, which is NOT the domain of government. The city does not know what kind of lighting I will need to make my property safer or how to accommodate the needs of all the people. Part of the ordinance would make it illegal to have lighting on your deck, if the deck is facing the ocean or can be seen by your neighbors. The enforcement of this law is questionable. All of this is subjective and will lead to serious abuses. Given that the
city body has proved that it can be vindictive against people with whom they do not agree it is not a matter of if it will happen, but when. It will be similar to when the city rejected someone having access to water, merely on the grounds that that person opposed annexation.
I tried to speak on this agenda item at the last city council meeting and was denied public comment. Since the council was informed by Public Notice I’m going to post the emails that I have received from two of the Bandon City Councilors and my replies to them.
Related Posts:
Bandon: The City of Ordinances
STOP THE LIGHTING ORDINANCE!!!
5.B.2 Ordinance 1594 – Outdoor Lighting Regulations
We are going to put this new ordinance up for Referendum and you can help.
If you want to volunteer to get signatures for this petition please notify me at [email protected] or
call 541-347-9942.
The name of our committee is "The Committee to Keep the Lights ON in Bandon." It’s catchy, huh?
The lighting atmosphere is perfectly fine in small town Bandon and there is no need for more city regulations. The
Dark/Starry Skies ordinance deals with much more than just the direction of light, conservation, or the consideration for neighbors or wildlife. I have read the ordinance, but unlike the Bandon city council, I can comprehend the
ramifications of these new intrusive regulations. Of course, nobody knows what unintended consequence will occur after this over-reaching law is passed. Unintended consequences never seem to be the concern of politicians who want to create regulations for the pursuit of leftist ideology.
Basically, the problem is that this lighting ordinance gives the city total authority to tell property owners what kind of lighting they can use, which is NOT the domain of government. The city does not know what kind of lighting I will need to make my property safer or how to accommodate the needs of all the people. Part of the ordinance would make it illegal to have lighting on your deck, if the deck is facing the ocean or can be seen by your neighbors. The enforcement of this law is questionable. All of this is subjective and will lead to serious abuses. Given that the
city body has proved that it can be vindictive against people with whom they do not agree it is not a matter of if it will happen, but when. It will be similar to when the city rejected someone having access to water, merely on the grounds that that person opposed annexation.
I tried to speak on this agenda item at the last city council meeting and was denied public comment. Since the council was informed by Public Notice I’m going to post the emails that I have received from two of the Bandon City Councilors and my replies to them.
Related Posts:
Bandon: The City of Ordinances
********************************************************
From Councilor Hundhausen:
Rob,
There are legal procedures connected to the process of forming and adopting a new ordinance. If you had contacted any one of the Council, or the City Manager, to inquire about that process, that person would have been happy to
explain procedures to you so that you would better understand how to participate.
In the case of the Dark Skies ordinance, it has actually been under some form of discussion and consideration for the past four years. You have had a long time to submit your views to the Council and to try to influence public opinion. The fact that you feel you didn't have an opportunity to speak is unfortunate, but not correct. The Bandon City Council has been patiently listening to your comments for a number of years now. In fact you have had more meeting time dedicated to your opinions than some Councilors who are elected representatives of the people. I won't even go into the area of print media where an amazing amount of space is devoted to your ideas. If you doubt my statement, please go through the recorded Bandon City Council meetings at http://coosmediacenter.pegcentral.com.
Add up your speaking time and compare it with Bandon's City Councilors and see for yourself who is being heard.
The Starry Skies ordinance deals with direction of light, conservation of energy and consideration for neighbors and
wildlife. Existing lighting is grandfathered. If you have read it, you know it will not cause Bandon to be dark. It is a good ordinance. It gets us going in the right direction and I believe you will find it has broad based support.
Your interest in politics is commendable. However you may find that your efforts are better received if you think about the following:
Check procedures and facts ahead of time. Passing along incorrect information destroys one's credibility.
Talk to elected officials individually when and where they can consider your thoughts without time constraints. Most people need to hear an idea more than once and from different sources before they can consider it.
If you object to a proposed ordinance and want to offer public testimony, explain how such a law will affect you, personally. Your personal experience has validity, for example, explain the expense you might incur in dollars and cents. Tell the Council what it is that you want and above all, avoid making threats. Surely if you were volunteering your time to serve in public office, you might wish to be addressed in a respectful way.
Another thought is that City ordinances are not set in stone. They are generally monitored for effectiveness. If they are not working in a positive way, they can be reconsidered at a future date. If you are a proponent of the Constitution,
surely you know it is a living document. It has been amended and at times amendments are reversed. That's how a good system works.
Meanwhile, constituents are welcome to call or e-mail any time. That is why names, e-mail addresses, etc. are posted on the City website. One thing is certain, however, if you attack publicly and unfairly, if you don't pay attention to facts, you can expect a public response. Thanks for your letter.
Claudine Hundhausen
Rob Taylor’s reply:
Mrs. Hundhausen,
Thank you for your response to my email, but there are few things you got wrong.
You wrote:
There are legal procedures connected to the process of forming and adopting a new ordinance. If you had contacted any one of the Council, or the City Manager, to inquire about that process, that person would have been happy to explain procedures to you so that you would better understand how to participate.
First off, that is a very insulting statement, but it is the modus operandi of Big Government progressives who do not like what another person has to say. Instead of bolstering your argument with facts you insult a person’s intelligence, but I assure you Madam, I completely understand the legal procedures connected to the process just as well as you do, if not better. The city manager is a consummate liar and you can look back at several of the debates the manager and I have had in the local newspaper where I have pointed out those lies. He would be the last person I would trust to explain any procedure or to do it with any accuracy.
Also, I am participating in the process by keeping the city council under check with the initiative and referendum process, which was developed exactly for politicians who do not know their limits. Maybe it is you who needs to learn the proper legal procedures connected to the process or find another vocation?
You wrote:
In the case of the Dark Skies ordinance, it has actually been under some form of discussion and consideration for the past four years. You have had a long time to submit your views to the Council and to try to influence public opinion. The fact that you feel you didn't have an opportunity to speak is unfortunate, but not correct. The Bandon City Council has been patiently listening to your comments for a number of years now. In fact you have had more meeting time
dedicated to your opinions than some Councilors who are elected representatives of the people. I won't even go into the area of print media where an amazing amount of space is devoted to your ideas. If you doubt my statement, please go through the recorded Bandon City Council meetings at http://coosmediacenter.pegcentral.com.
Add up your speaking time and compare it with Bandon's City Councilors and see for yourself who is being heard.
I know the council has been pushing their backwards Dark Skies ordinance for several years and I do not have the time to attend all the meetings of these endless committees that are being directed by unelected people. These committees should be disbanded if this is the intrusive laws they are intending on creating. For your other point, everyone receives the same amount of time to speak at public meetings and it is not like I’m getting some special privilege. If the councilors chose not to voice their opinion at their own meetings then that is their own fault for not taking the time to explain themselves. Also, it is not my fault if the papers choose to print my letters. It could be that those letters are well written and receive very good reviews from the readers of those publications. You and everyone else have the same opportunity to send a letter to the editor or you could write your own Op-Ed piece. I know for a fact the Sentinel would gladly print any unedited work you would like to submit.
You wrote:
The Starry Skies ordinance deals with direction of light, conservation of energy and consideration for neighbors and wildlife. Existing lighting is grandfathered. If you have read it, you know it will not cause Bandon to be dark. It is a good
ordinance. It gets us going in the right direction and I believe you will find it has broad based support.
Your name change from Dark Skies to Starry Skies in one paragraph only exemplifies your confusing
as to what this ordinance will and will not do. The Dark/Starry Skies ordinance deals with much more than just the direction of light, conservation or the consideration for neighbors or wildlife. I have read the ordinance, but unlike you I can comprehend the ramifications of these new intrusive regulations. Of course, nobody knows what unintended consequence will happen after this overreaching law is passed and that never seems to be a concern of politicians who want to create regulations just because they can. And, I too have found a broad base of support, but people who do not like the heavy hand of government like attending countless meetings even less, so they’re not as likely to be as politically active as all the nosy-neighbors that seem to populate city councils all over this country.
Basically, the problem is that this lighting ordinance gives the city the authority to tell property owners what kind of lighting they can use, which is NOT the domain of government. The city does not know what kind of lighting I will need to make my property safer. Part of the ordinance would make it illegal to have lighting on your deck, if the deck is facing the ocean or can be seen by your neighbors. All of that is subjective and could lead to a serious abuse of the law. Given the city body has already proven itself to be vindictive against people that do not agree with the city will eventually lead to the misuse of the law. It’s not a matter of if it will happen, but when and against whom. It is similar to someone being rejected for water, because they opposed annexation.
You wrote:
Your interest in politics is commendable. However you may find that your efforts are better received if you think about the following:
Check procedures and facts ahead of time. Passing along incorrect information destroys one's credibility.
There you have it wrong again. I hate politics, but I love freedom and if government would leave me in peace then I would not have to spend so much time trying to thwart their efforts. I always check the facts, but unlike politicians I admit I’m human and will make mistakes. The only mistake made in my email was the number of people who voted for this law. I gave too much credit to Brian Vick and thought he voted against it. That error was a mistake, but it does not invalidate my point that the law is too intrusive and should not be enacted. Also, nobody has a bigger credibility problem than politicians. They are on a level lower than ambulance chasers and car salesmen, but that may be an insult to those vocations.
You wrote:
Talk to elected officials individually when and where they can consider your thoughts without time constraints. Most people need to hear an idea more than once and from different sources before they can consider it.
Why bother, their actions speak louder than words and I have very little time left to listen to the BS.
You wrote:
If you object to a proposed ordinance and want to offer public testimony, explain how such a law will affect you, personally. Your personal experience has validity, for example, explain the expense you might incur in dollars and cents. Tell the Council what it is that you want and above all, avoid making threats. Surely if you were volunteering your time to serve in public office, you might wish to be addressed in a respectful way.
Notice to you and the rest of the world, this here is my written objection and if you would have made a point of order and asked to make a motion to allow me to speak at the last council meeting then you would have heard my arguments. I do not have to give personal examples to show a law is unjustified, that is a silly requirement from politicians who lack in foresight. And, the only threat that has been made has been by the city council and it was made against our liberties. I do not make threats. I just inform the council of what legal alternatives we will take to fight against bad laws, which is a bona fide guarantee. And, Mrs.
Hundhausen respect is a two way street and the lack of respect that this city shows to property owners should be your top priority. As far as volunteering, this is how I choose to spend my time, not making
more rules for my neighbors to follow.
You wrote:
Another thought is that City ordinances are not set in stone. They are generally monitored for effectiveness. If they are not working in a positive way, they can be reconsidered at a future date. If you are a proponent of the Constitution,
surely you know it is a living document. It has been amended and at times amendments are reversed. That's how a good system works.
Yeah, I know, but thank you for insulting me again….is that what you call respect?
You wrote:
Meanwhile, constituents are welcome to call or e-mail any time. That is why names, e-mail addresses, etc. are posted on the City website. One thing is certain, however, if you attack publicly and unfairly, if you don't pay attention to facts, you can expect a public response. Thanks for your letter.
Communication is a two way street and you have my name and number too, but my phone never seems to get a ring after any of the times I’ve spoken before the council and I have yet to receive any invitation to a private meeting. It is funny, you politicians always come crawling to the public when need our vote, but after you are elected it is up to us to notify you of our concerns. Well I have notified you of my concerns at every monthly meeting and you are at fault for not following up. If I was a representative of the people I would go out of my way to learn what those people really think, especially if a person has gone out of their way to display those concerns.
Well Mrs. Hundhausen we will have to agree to disagree, if we can even agree to do that. At least you had the
courage to respond and for that I thank you.
You have a nice day now…..
*************************************************************
This is from Councilor Brian Vick
Rob,
First of all, the vote was 5 to 1 in favor. I voted for it because it was NOT
retroactive and really pertains to shining new lighting down instead of allowing
lights to shine up and all over...this pertains to new City lighting as well. I
was concerned with enforcement and I still am. If you feel that wasting (your
words) 5 thousand dollars of the taxpayers money is a good thing then I guess we
know where you and your group is coming from!
Brian Vick
Hey Brian,
I will have to go back and look at the vote, but you are the ones wasting our tax dollars by forcing the vote in March. We have absolutely no control over when and what the city council votes on and you would have to prove otherwise. Of course, ask yourself, how will the public see this and who will they blame for the waste of money. They always blame the politicians, plus the blame clearly lies at the feet of the council and that will be brought out during your
campaign to be reelected.
Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
Rob,
The time for public comment was at the Planning Level!
There was no public comment submitted!
Should the Council OVERTURN the Planning Commission after
all of the work they do?
Brian
Brian,
That's right, the planning commission is WRONG. Your question is like asking if the German people should have overturned Hitler's Master Plan. You and the councilors are responsible for enacting city code, no matter how much you would like to negate that responsibility to escape culpability. By the way, many of us would like to see the Planning Commission disbanded, because of their lack of understanding of the US Constitution. Also, public comment should not be stifled at any level, but keep shifting the blame and see if it works for you campaign.
Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
Rob,
If always blaming the politicians were true What the hell is Obama and the
Democrats still doing in office...you know we are on the same side on most
issues!
Brian,
that is why President Obama will more than likely be voted out of office, because of his administrations constant blaming of the previous administration. And, you should have been on the right side of this issue, or does being a conservative in Bandon mean creating new laws to cause more government intrusion.
Of course, Romney thinks he is a conservative too......
Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
From Councilor Hundhausen:
Rob,
There are legal procedures connected to the process of forming and adopting a new ordinance. If you had contacted any one of the Council, or the City Manager, to inquire about that process, that person would have been happy to
explain procedures to you so that you would better understand how to participate.
In the case of the Dark Skies ordinance, it has actually been under some form of discussion and consideration for the past four years. You have had a long time to submit your views to the Council and to try to influence public opinion. The fact that you feel you didn't have an opportunity to speak is unfortunate, but not correct. The Bandon City Council has been patiently listening to your comments for a number of years now. In fact you have had more meeting time dedicated to your opinions than some Councilors who are elected representatives of the people. I won't even go into the area of print media where an amazing amount of space is devoted to your ideas. If you doubt my statement, please go through the recorded Bandon City Council meetings at http://coosmediacenter.pegcentral.com.
Add up your speaking time and compare it with Bandon's City Councilors and see for yourself who is being heard.
The Starry Skies ordinance deals with direction of light, conservation of energy and consideration for neighbors and
wildlife. Existing lighting is grandfathered. If you have read it, you know it will not cause Bandon to be dark. It is a good ordinance. It gets us going in the right direction and I believe you will find it has broad based support.
Your interest in politics is commendable. However you may find that your efforts are better received if you think about the following:
Check procedures and facts ahead of time. Passing along incorrect information destroys one's credibility.
Talk to elected officials individually when and where they can consider your thoughts without time constraints. Most people need to hear an idea more than once and from different sources before they can consider it.
If you object to a proposed ordinance and want to offer public testimony, explain how such a law will affect you, personally. Your personal experience has validity, for example, explain the expense you might incur in dollars and cents. Tell the Council what it is that you want and above all, avoid making threats. Surely if you were volunteering your time to serve in public office, you might wish to be addressed in a respectful way.
Another thought is that City ordinances are not set in stone. They are generally monitored for effectiveness. If they are not working in a positive way, they can be reconsidered at a future date. If you are a proponent of the Constitution,
surely you know it is a living document. It has been amended and at times amendments are reversed. That's how a good system works.
Meanwhile, constituents are welcome to call or e-mail any time. That is why names, e-mail addresses, etc. are posted on the City website. One thing is certain, however, if you attack publicly and unfairly, if you don't pay attention to facts, you can expect a public response. Thanks for your letter.
Claudine Hundhausen
Rob Taylor’s reply:
Mrs. Hundhausen,
Thank you for your response to my email, but there are few things you got wrong.
You wrote:
There are legal procedures connected to the process of forming and adopting a new ordinance. If you had contacted any one of the Council, or the City Manager, to inquire about that process, that person would have been happy to explain procedures to you so that you would better understand how to participate.
First off, that is a very insulting statement, but it is the modus operandi of Big Government progressives who do not like what another person has to say. Instead of bolstering your argument with facts you insult a person’s intelligence, but I assure you Madam, I completely understand the legal procedures connected to the process just as well as you do, if not better. The city manager is a consummate liar and you can look back at several of the debates the manager and I have had in the local newspaper where I have pointed out those lies. He would be the last person I would trust to explain any procedure or to do it with any accuracy.
Also, I am participating in the process by keeping the city council under check with the initiative and referendum process, which was developed exactly for politicians who do not know their limits. Maybe it is you who needs to learn the proper legal procedures connected to the process or find another vocation?
You wrote:
In the case of the Dark Skies ordinance, it has actually been under some form of discussion and consideration for the past four years. You have had a long time to submit your views to the Council and to try to influence public opinion. The fact that you feel you didn't have an opportunity to speak is unfortunate, but not correct. The Bandon City Council has been patiently listening to your comments for a number of years now. In fact you have had more meeting time
dedicated to your opinions than some Councilors who are elected representatives of the people. I won't even go into the area of print media where an amazing amount of space is devoted to your ideas. If you doubt my statement, please go through the recorded Bandon City Council meetings at http://coosmediacenter.pegcentral.com.
Add up your speaking time and compare it with Bandon's City Councilors and see for yourself who is being heard.
I know the council has been pushing their backwards Dark Skies ordinance for several years and I do not have the time to attend all the meetings of these endless committees that are being directed by unelected people. These committees should be disbanded if this is the intrusive laws they are intending on creating. For your other point, everyone receives the same amount of time to speak at public meetings and it is not like I’m getting some special privilege. If the councilors chose not to voice their opinion at their own meetings then that is their own fault for not taking the time to explain themselves. Also, it is not my fault if the papers choose to print my letters. It could be that those letters are well written and receive very good reviews from the readers of those publications. You and everyone else have the same opportunity to send a letter to the editor or you could write your own Op-Ed piece. I know for a fact the Sentinel would gladly print any unedited work you would like to submit.
You wrote:
The Starry Skies ordinance deals with direction of light, conservation of energy and consideration for neighbors and wildlife. Existing lighting is grandfathered. If you have read it, you know it will not cause Bandon to be dark. It is a good
ordinance. It gets us going in the right direction and I believe you will find it has broad based support.
Your name change from Dark Skies to Starry Skies in one paragraph only exemplifies your confusing
as to what this ordinance will and will not do. The Dark/Starry Skies ordinance deals with much more than just the direction of light, conservation or the consideration for neighbors or wildlife. I have read the ordinance, but unlike you I can comprehend the ramifications of these new intrusive regulations. Of course, nobody knows what unintended consequence will happen after this overreaching law is passed and that never seems to be a concern of politicians who want to create regulations just because they can. And, I too have found a broad base of support, but people who do not like the heavy hand of government like attending countless meetings even less, so they’re not as likely to be as politically active as all the nosy-neighbors that seem to populate city councils all over this country.
Basically, the problem is that this lighting ordinance gives the city the authority to tell property owners what kind of lighting they can use, which is NOT the domain of government. The city does not know what kind of lighting I will need to make my property safer. Part of the ordinance would make it illegal to have lighting on your deck, if the deck is facing the ocean or can be seen by your neighbors. All of that is subjective and could lead to a serious abuse of the law. Given the city body has already proven itself to be vindictive against people that do not agree with the city will eventually lead to the misuse of the law. It’s not a matter of if it will happen, but when and against whom. It is similar to someone being rejected for water, because they opposed annexation.
You wrote:
Your interest in politics is commendable. However you may find that your efforts are better received if you think about the following:
Check procedures and facts ahead of time. Passing along incorrect information destroys one's credibility.
There you have it wrong again. I hate politics, but I love freedom and if government would leave me in peace then I would not have to spend so much time trying to thwart their efforts. I always check the facts, but unlike politicians I admit I’m human and will make mistakes. The only mistake made in my email was the number of people who voted for this law. I gave too much credit to Brian Vick and thought he voted against it. That error was a mistake, but it does not invalidate my point that the law is too intrusive and should not be enacted. Also, nobody has a bigger credibility problem than politicians. They are on a level lower than ambulance chasers and car salesmen, but that may be an insult to those vocations.
You wrote:
Talk to elected officials individually when and where they can consider your thoughts without time constraints. Most people need to hear an idea more than once and from different sources before they can consider it.
Why bother, their actions speak louder than words and I have very little time left to listen to the BS.
You wrote:
If you object to a proposed ordinance and want to offer public testimony, explain how such a law will affect you, personally. Your personal experience has validity, for example, explain the expense you might incur in dollars and cents. Tell the Council what it is that you want and above all, avoid making threats. Surely if you were volunteering your time to serve in public office, you might wish to be addressed in a respectful way.
Notice to you and the rest of the world, this here is my written objection and if you would have made a point of order and asked to make a motion to allow me to speak at the last council meeting then you would have heard my arguments. I do not have to give personal examples to show a law is unjustified, that is a silly requirement from politicians who lack in foresight. And, the only threat that has been made has been by the city council and it was made against our liberties. I do not make threats. I just inform the council of what legal alternatives we will take to fight against bad laws, which is a bona fide guarantee. And, Mrs.
Hundhausen respect is a two way street and the lack of respect that this city shows to property owners should be your top priority. As far as volunteering, this is how I choose to spend my time, not making
more rules for my neighbors to follow.
You wrote:
Another thought is that City ordinances are not set in stone. They are generally monitored for effectiveness. If they are not working in a positive way, they can be reconsidered at a future date. If you are a proponent of the Constitution,
surely you know it is a living document. It has been amended and at times amendments are reversed. That's how a good system works.
Yeah, I know, but thank you for insulting me again….is that what you call respect?
You wrote:
Meanwhile, constituents are welcome to call or e-mail any time. That is why names, e-mail addresses, etc. are posted on the City website. One thing is certain, however, if you attack publicly and unfairly, if you don't pay attention to facts, you can expect a public response. Thanks for your letter.
Communication is a two way street and you have my name and number too, but my phone never seems to get a ring after any of the times I’ve spoken before the council and I have yet to receive any invitation to a private meeting. It is funny, you politicians always come crawling to the public when need our vote, but after you are elected it is up to us to notify you of our concerns. Well I have notified you of my concerns at every monthly meeting and you are at fault for not following up. If I was a representative of the people I would go out of my way to learn what those people really think, especially if a person has gone out of their way to display those concerns.
Well Mrs. Hundhausen we will have to agree to disagree, if we can even agree to do that. At least you had the
courage to respond and for that I thank you.
You have a nice day now…..
*************************************************************
This is from Councilor Brian Vick
Rob,
First of all, the vote was 5 to 1 in favor. I voted for it because it was NOT
retroactive and really pertains to shining new lighting down instead of allowing
lights to shine up and all over...this pertains to new City lighting as well. I
was concerned with enforcement and I still am. If you feel that wasting (your
words) 5 thousand dollars of the taxpayers money is a good thing then I guess we
know where you and your group is coming from!
Brian Vick
Hey Brian,
I will have to go back and look at the vote, but you are the ones wasting our tax dollars by forcing the vote in March. We have absolutely no control over when and what the city council votes on and you would have to prove otherwise. Of course, ask yourself, how will the public see this and who will they blame for the waste of money. They always blame the politicians, plus the blame clearly lies at the feet of the council and that will be brought out during your
campaign to be reelected.
Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
Rob,
The time for public comment was at the Planning Level!
There was no public comment submitted!
Should the Council OVERTURN the Planning Commission after
all of the work they do?
Brian
Brian,
That's right, the planning commission is WRONG. Your question is like asking if the German people should have overturned Hitler's Master Plan. You and the councilors are responsible for enacting city code, no matter how much you would like to negate that responsibility to escape culpability. By the way, many of us would like to see the Planning Commission disbanded, because of their lack of understanding of the US Constitution. Also, public comment should not be stifled at any level, but keep shifting the blame and see if it works for you campaign.
Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
Rob,
If always blaming the politicians were true What the hell is Obama and the
Democrats still doing in office...you know we are on the same side on most
issues!
Brian,
that is why President Obama will more than likely be voted out of office, because of his administrations constant blaming of the previous administration. And, you should have been on the right side of this issue, or does being a conservative in Bandon mean creating new laws to cause more government intrusion.
Of course, Romney thinks he is a conservative too......
Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
RSS Feed
