Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Print Edition
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Life Events
Cannabis
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
Close
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Out with the old...
Susan, while technically correct, the way the article is written would lead one who doesn't read it carefully to assume that Mary is trying to overturn the measure passed by the voters. The Council has no choice but to implement the measure, but it does have some degree of latitude as to how to implement it. That is what Mary wants to revisit. I didn't hear repeal, but if that's what she said, she is certainly not challenging the ballot measure, but how it is implemented.— December 7, 2012 11:33 p.m.
Out with the old...
P.S. In fact, she also says she wants to improve it (line 4). So even though she used the word "repeal", it is clear from the context that she wants to improve it and remove the flaws she sees (yet to be heard). But again, the article does not make that clear and leads readers to believe she wants to do away with it.— December 7, 2012 4:29 p.m.
Out with the old...
I didn't hear the word repeal, but in the context of her statement, she is clearly referring to the Council action to implement the ordinance. The mention of repeal is in the sentence that she says "that action" whcih refers to the Council's action on Nov 29 mentioned in her first and second line. Again, there is no doubt that she knows that neither she nor the Council can repeal a measure passed by the voters. It's important that you read or listen for things in context. Not having done so resulted in your writing an article that charges something that appears to be much bigger than it is. Readers who didn't attend or watch the meeting will assume she wants to repeal a voter approved ordinance, which is clearly not what she said.— December 7, 2012 4:23 p.m.
Out with the old...
Susan, please go back and listen to her comments again. She did not say repeal. She said she had concerns with some aspects of the Council's implementation of the ordinance that she wants the Council to look at again. There is no doubt that Mary knows that neither she nor the Council can repeal something the voters approved.— December 6, 2012 9:26 p.m.
Condo Excitement
Clearly you were not reporting both sides of each comment, intending to leave the reader with the impression that the quotes represented the truth. There was no real balance to the report. Of course Peter lamented, but what about the other sie of his lament? And D'Ascoli did not state opposition to the fountain, but to the prior speaker who advocated the fountain and concluded that no one gets excited about condos.— May 24, 2010 8:42 p.m.
Condo Excitement
It is really unfortunate that the author really seems to have misrepresented the comments and issues. Mr. D'Ascoli's comment of being excited by condos was specifiaccly in response to the previous speaker who closed saying that no one is excited by condos. She also reports Mr. Watry's lamont at the loss of 35 acres of parks, but there was no real loss of parkland, but a reconfiguration. Then she reports Jackie Lancaster's concern of no access to the shoreline. Ms. Lancaster's charge is also incorrect. There will be at least the same access to the shore as there has been for years, which can be found at the current park on the bayfront park. Ms. Luzarro's reporting indicates an obvious opposition to the Bayfront Plan.— May 23, 2010 5:59 p.m.