Jump to content
Thank you Council for choosing diligence. A good step toward rebuilding trust.
Agree with the above comments. Keep in mind these detachments from the Area Plan the City has adopted or allowed :
1) In the past 4 years, the Community Development Code (CDC) has been significantly revised toward flexible criteria for development. One such CDC revision was across the whole and specific in intent - replacing "project shall adhere to the Area Plan in this regard" with "project should consider Area Plan in this regard."
2) The 2014 effort to update the Area Plan was so poorly attended, the City has formally acknowledged the update was not statistically meaningful. The Pilot, the City, and the County showed far less interest than they gave the 2004 update and the original 1994 plan (formally adopted in 1995). ("It also has been updated since it was first adopted in 2004." is not correct.)
Given this history, the Area Plan carries uncertain, if not abandoned, criteria. Community members are right to ask this parcel's criteria and zoning be in place before the annexation. There has to be public involvement and that requires specific details. Its the same reason we spent a year vetting parameters for SB700.
Along the same thought, earlier that night Tony Connell asked staff to establish the parking spaces needed to serve a built-out downtown. That foresight is wise.
What I said:
"this blog is the kingdom that welcomes half baked ideas and closed minds. Failure of more serious minds to enter here is indicative of nothing more than that truth. The inevitable derogation is just a bonus. I do know a dozen or so folks from the left and from the right who work hard at politics to change the world - every one of them considers this place a joke. Have a nice 2016."
Tom, somehow you take this text as an attack on you? And somehow this text says I am superior? Beats me how you get there, but your response is unkind.
Scott explains for you the inaccuracy of your post quite clearly, but your choice is to ignore him. Instead you yell CAPS at me demanding proof of what is already proven.
1) Not what I said.
2) I obviously post here, so how am I judging anyone any differently than myself?
3) Some posts are good. Vast majority are not. Consider the patently obvious inaccuracies in your above post that I could waste time correcting. Or not.
Perhaps you begin to understand why so few bother to read or post here.
"With the exception of Scott W, there doesn't seem to be another liberal in town who is consistently capable of debating in this forum, without name-calling, while staying on topic. I agree with the tone of Jim's post, however, that until we have liberals confident enough in their positions to debate the merits and refrain from retorts that only engage in name-calling while ignoring the debate, it will seem as though the conservatives have the run of the threads."
Or... this blog is the kingdom that welcomes half baked ideas and closed minds. Failure of more serious minds to enter here is indicative of nothing more than that truth. The inevitable derogation is just a bonus. I do know a dozen or so folks from the left and from the right who work hard at politics to change the world - every one of them considers this place a joke.
Have a nice 2016.
A lot of concern above about Islamic extremism coming here. Obvious eagerness to point to examples of the worst in that religion. I link a Pew Poll indicating the vast majority of Muslims prefer peace to violence. Outside the Middle East, few would choose to live under sharia law. But that doesn't matter. What matters in above posts is a focus on the worst examples of the religion. "Expect the worst", seems to be your message.
This begs an obvious question: What say you to the 1.5 million Americans practicing Islam peacefully here?
These Muslims have been living and contributing in the US for decades. There are recent examples of Muslim attacks on US citizens, yes. That group amounts to .0007 % of the Muslims now here. The shootings by Muslims amount to perhaps .01%? of the casualties from other mass shootings in the same time frame.
So conservatives, what say you to American Muslims? Can you respect and welcome them as your neighbor? Or do you prefer to drive young American Muslims into the shadows.
This will be a little more useful than "what she said".
"a Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely. Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law."
"Recent surveys show that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably. In some countries, considerable portions of the population do not offer an opinion about ISIS, including a majority (62%) of Pakistanis.
Favorable views of ISIS are somewhat higher in Nigeria (14%) than most other nations. Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably (compared with 7% of Nigerian Christians). The Nigerian militant group Boko Haram, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, has sworn allegiance to ISIS.
More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified, including 92% in Indonesia and 91% in Iraq. In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances.
In a few countries, a quarter or more of Muslims say that these acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 40% in the Palestinian territories, 39% in Afghanistan, 29% in Egypt and 26% in Bangladesh."
In other words, the vast majority of Muslims prefer peace to violence. Outside the Middle East, few would choose to live under sharia law.
You fail to see the large role ISIS recruitment plays in this fight. To proclaim we are fighting even a remote faction of Islam would amount to doing ISIS recruiting for them. And there is zero upside for us in doing so, except you can agree with a hollow GOP narrative.
Again, from the Pentagon: “…anything that tries to bolster the ISIL narrative that the United States is somehow at war with Islam is contrary to our values and contrary to our national security,”
Elitism, condescension and full blown delusion?
"Politcal correctness", as a criticism, usually applies equally to both sides. In this case a call by candidates to label this a fight with "Islamic extremists" is the opposite PC of a call to avoid that label, except the latter actually serves our security strategy rather than undermine it.
The Pentagon: “Without wading into politics, anything that tries to bolster the ISIL narrative that the United States is somehow at war with Islam is contrary to our values and contrary to our national security,” Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook told reporters. “We are partnering right now with Muslim nations,” he said. “We have troops serving that follow the Muslim faith.” He declined to specifically address Trump’s call for a ban.
Its simple, if you do not want to fight a religion then don't publicly proclaim you are at war with any variant of that religion. Do we really think public disclosures ever fully describe our defensive and surveillance operations?
Barry, you have a lot to say about this topic. I agree with Scott - picking a fight with a religion would be a disastrous strategy. What do you recommend to overcome this terrorism problem?
$3.05 million was the reported selling price in Pilot articles during the sale deliberations.
The property sold for $2.65 million.
Last login: Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |