Comments

1

Some corrections, and really Alex maybe do some fact checking on your articles please. You sound foolish:
1. The code change committee members were chosen directly by Eudaly’s right hand gal, Bureau Director Suk Rhee and Eudaly herself, not “the city”
2. Molly Mayo got shoved out of her job at Sooutheast Uplift for being incompetent, messing up important contracts and for financial mismanagement so bad that the Board treasurer had to issue a report stating the books are so messed up they can’t even be audited in current form. This by the way is public record under current code but would not be under Eudaly’s proposed code. No wonder Mayo wants the new code.

Molly Mayo has an ax to grind because she got caught mismanaging they neighborhood coalition. Molly Mayo is also the exact kind of divisiveness Commissioner Hardesty is referring to and an example of why the rest of council is thumbs down on Eudaly’s poorly constructed and disastrously managed code change.

Also it’s not really about diversity or neighborhood associations. It’s about Eudaly constructing policies to give her more sole power and cut off community pushback: she wants to ditch rules that strip open meetings & records laws, a public grievance process, the ability for communities to push back on developers through dismantling land use review rules, and other checks and balances with government currently in place. She’s stripping those and many other rules out.

Thankfully, the rest of council sees through Eudaly’s BS.

2

Thanks #1 for totally clarifying the FACTS. Your analysis is totally not offensive or biased or insulting at all. Some fools may think that this is an effort by the City to improve public involvement but you've helped us all understand that it's really about evil people with personal agendas, trying to rule the world beginning with land use, which is not you at all. Keep being so terrific. Someday when these marginalized communities get it right, you'll happily allow them to participate. When they EARN it, like you did.

3

What are you talking about? There is near unanimity about the need to move forward. Your post is a perfect example of the unnecessary pettiness that has marred this conversation. No one objects to making the city processes more inclusive. The only reason this has been delayed is that Eudaly blew it. She couldn't get even a single vote to support her proposal.

4

"...Hardesty told the crowded room. “I will not support anything that divides our community more."
That's Hardesty for you, the Great Uniter. Unless you work the wrong job ( cops) or are the wrong skin color (anything paler than Pantone 7402C), or obligate her to follow a regulation she doesn't like (URM signage), in which case you must not be part of the "Community" she is referring to. The woman is just a monumental racist.

5

Quoth Jamie Duhamel: "So. Much. Privelege."


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.