Alderman Mimi Duncan makes a feeble attempt to cover her actions at the May 24, 2011 BOA meeting (click here for her letter to the editor.)
This is a classic folks, not only does Ms. Duncan refute her own statement that she "will not Govern in the media," she pens her own version of what transpired at that meeting!
She tells us that she received a phone call from Mayor Schlink to tell her about his being called away on business and telling her who his choice for his replacement was. At this point Ms. Duncan might I remind you that YOU ARE THE BOARD PRESIDENT and that is proper procedure!
She further states that if she had a nominee she would have called all the other Alderman to tell them who it was. Neat, but how does she know that was not in fact the case here? And by the way Ms. Duncan you took out the paperwork to run for mayor with great fanfare, but never went so far as to file! Get cold feet in the middle of winter did you? Please allow me to recommend a product called "Toasty Toes" that will help with that.
Now we move into the realm of the actual vetting process where she states that "people from the floor" were allowed to make comments. Neat except it never happened unless Ms. Beezley got up and went to the podium because she launched into a diatribe against Mr. Mosby on the spot and effectively shut down the debate.
Now other than this I see she has still never answered any of the questions as to why she voted as she did (anti Mosby.) Ms. Duncan don't you think any of us have a memory or can listen to transcripts or read the running blog on the Patch"
I really think that the strain of Governing has taken it's heavy toll on Alderman Duncan, and she may well wish to resign to "spend more time with her family."
Tom Ford
NO. 909
posted by Crestwood Independent at 16:20
66 Comments:
I think it's time this insane obsession over Mr. Mosby is allowed to die, on all sides, from everyone. Enough of this. It's ben beaten to death, and nothing is coming of it. Leave it alone and move on.
I think your wrong and don't know who to spell, unless you meant to say that "Ben was beaten to death' and if that is the case, I think it is a matter for the police.
5:21 PM Blogger: not on your life my friend, If they can't take it let them resign, the sooner the better.
This was a planned, despicable use of power by these four third rate ward healers and were going to make darn sure they all face the music!
"Move on' is used only when the party that wishes to do so has no other avenue but surrender, so "move on" will not work here!
The four have made their bed and now they must lie in it!
Tom Ford
"There was discussion both from the board and from the audience and I participated in that discussion. After all who had expressed a desire to speak were given an opportunity, a vote was taken."
I was at that board meeting (and I attend many of the meetings). And I read the approved minutes, and listened to the audio recording of the meeting. The above quote is simply not true. Anyone who wants to can listen to the audio, and will find out that NO OPPORTUNITY was given for the public to speak, or ask questions. A few aldermen asked some questions, and Ms. Beezley made a speech, and a vote was immediately taken. "The four" voted no, and since there were only three other voters, that was it!
Most things at the BOA move very slow, but this was like an express train. No opportunity was given for comments. Before you knew it, it was a done deal! No opportunity for public comments until the next BOA meeting, when Ms. Duncan said
that she "sat next to the City Attorney at the last meeting, asked him for protocol advice during this process and
things were handled according to the Charter." Apparently she blames him for the previous meetings "problems".
1:50 AM Blogger: Of course she does, anyone but herself don't ya know. (Oh what a tangled web we weave.)
I would be a darn site happier if she and her cohorts would simply tell us they did it because they could, and stop the child like it wasn't me!
However it appears that they don't have the courage of their convictions to do that, maybe because they were completely wrong and they know it!
Tom Ford
Hey John,
I wasn't at the meeting like you were. Would you write a letter like your post to TIMES, pointing out the "short comings" of the Alderman's letter?
Dear God, people, let this die!! This manic obsession over this is becoming tiresome.
9:11 AM Blogger: Sure just as soon as the four admit what they did (THE TRUTH) to make sure their agenda was secure.
Then, and only then will I "let it go."
(A few more letters to the red covered throw away paper on the lawn perhaps?)
Tom Ford
Alderman Duncan, I have a nagging question that only you may be able to answer, so I would appreciate it if you would.
The comments reference you and the others on May 24, 2001 were addressed in the Sun Crest Call, not the times, so why did you comment in the Times instead of the Call?
You stated that you would "fight your own battles," yet you chose to do it in a "friendly' paper instead of the one the comments appeared in, why is that?
Tom Ford
9:11 AM, July 02, 2011
NO!
Don't read it then.
5:21 PM, July 01, 2011
"Leave it alone and move on."
If our forbears had taken this approach to injustice, we would be bowing to the Queen (or King), or perhaps speaking Japanese now.
Of course you will say that is an exaggeration...but it isn't.
Just for comparison, here is an exaggeration: we have all had a small deposit of dog poop made on our lawn by other peoples dogs.
Just think what it would be like if every dog in Crestwood left a deposit....or maybe also those from Affton, and Kirkwood, and Sunset Hills, and Fenton. We would have a giant stinking pile the size of our house! So we should ban all dogs from the entire area!
Of course not!
We all have laws to prevent it.
But, if we all followed your suggestion to "Leave it alone and move on." would you want that giant stinking ball of poop in your yard?
9:11 am June 2
This is not about Mr. Mosby or his rejection. It is about demanding answers of our elected representatives when their actions appear suspect, and when the answers they provide us indicate a certain degree of insincerity.
In justifying her actions, Alderman Duncan made a claim regarding allowing the public to speak even though this clearly did not happen. What's more mystifying is that she made this claim knowing full well that the audio and minutes of the meeting would disprove her version of events.
She also chastised officials at a previous meeting for governing through the press, then did just that with her letter to the Times.
Her letter to the editor, factually flawed as it was, encouraged citizens to attend meetings rather than read about them in the press. I hope she understands that the press provides a valuable link to those unable to attend the meetings, and that as much as it would be preferable to have increased attendance at the meetings, audio from the meetings is available on the city's website.
After reading the letter, I got the impression that Alderman Duncan was very upset about not having received a courtesy phone call from Mayor Schlink. Perhaps a bit of pique may have influenced her vote.
Martha Duchild
Martha, your right about what did and didn't happen at that meeting.
That said could it be that Alderman Duncan is now following the revisionist agenda so popular with the Progressives in Government today?
Unfortunately the "curtain" has been pulled back and we all can see who or whom is working the levers. Darn those recording machines and newspaper people anyway!
Tom Ford
"Perhaps a bit of pique may have influenced her vote."
Perhaps a bit of Pickel?
Please do not forget that MIMI did not work alone but in concert with Pickel, Foote and Beezley.
Also recall that Alderman Duncan DID NOT answer the question posted her by Tim Trueblood if she knew anyone employed by Pulaski Band.
Simple over sight on her part, or not able to give the truth to the question?
Trueblood asked questions to other board members that did not answer him. Are they also not willing to tell the truth or is it just Duncan you feel holds that title?
Others have answered Trueblood's questions. She answered his question incomplete. That is all that is being said.
You may read between the lines if you please.
4:06 I have concluded that Duncan is just as fed up as you are, but on the other side. In the court of public opinion she is linked with three others. That won't change!
I can only say what I would feel if in her shoes. I would not be happy having to defend myself over and over again. Sometimes the more you try to explain or defend yourself, the more people tear you apart.
I would never use this blog to defend myself because one answer would lead to another question and so on and so on. It usually doesn't work for instance, if you take the stand in your own defense in a court of law; where people already feel your are guilty. Chances are they will not change their minds no matter what you say any way.
So the great four have all been stamped as conspirators and if I were Duncan, I would save my breath cause it ain't gonna matter.
And I would never attempt to answer Trueblood cause he is just waiting in the bushes to ambush your every step.
The newspaper that everyone submits to will always be one-sided - nothing new there. Never gives an opposite view. So therefore, Duncan and the others have no choice but to remain silent or their words will be used to crucify them.
So 5:00 PM, July 05, 2011, it is not important for you to find out if an Alderman voting on something like the CID, knows any of the people who work at the bank that is asking for the CID?
You do not feel this is information that the public might want to know to ensure there is no conflict of interest on the Alderman's part?
And you are saying that answering that question would only lead to Trueblood ambushing an Alderman?
Strange how you put the feelings and interest of the elected Alderman above the need for the citizens of the City to know of a relationship that might influence how said Alderman votes.
Very interesting.
5:00 PM Blogger: Just a simple question if I may. Alderman Duncan said in the paper that she would "fight her own battles," right?
So the question is when does she start? It's nice to see the F.O.D. (friends of Duncan) show their support but can we please hear from her?
Tom Ford
I am just saying - where is the city attorney in all this? Plus, I stand neutral on this. I gave my view if I were Duncan. And I told you why I would not say anything on the blog or in the one newspaper and I gave my reasons. As far as being pro or con on Duncan, I will watch and see what happens. I will not give in to conjecture or supposition or what it looked like at that board meeting, etc. etc.
Didn't Duncan ask for the advise of the city attorney on something?
Let's put the blame on Mr. City
Attorney a little if you want to spread things around. He gets paid to do what? Yawn and look at his watch. If something isn't right - why can't he speak up.
Anyone who knows anything about the blog knows that it has no use for the famous four and people say it all the time. Now why, if I were Duncan, would I explain anything to those who throw rocks at me. Would you honestly believe anything Duncan would say.
Would that other newspaper editor print what she says, and then not do what he always does - knock it down as he gives his gifted opinion?
Out of 8 people on the board, how many have commented back to questions asked on this blog? Everyone's bio is on the blog and the same question has been asked by Trueblood to all of them. How many have responded?
And again if I were Duncan or the other three, no way would I post answers on this blog. That would be like saying I know you are going to hang me, so I will provide you the rope to do it.
People on this blog 99.9% do not like the four and that is that. And I am merely stating what I would do if I were Duncan. There are easier ways to die. The blog isn't one of them and neither is that newspaper.
Duncan, Miquel, Knarr and Wallach did not answer Tim Trueblood's question on this blog about the Firefighter's Union.
Alderman Duncan is attempting to defend a decision for which there is no legitimate defense, and she is digging a deeper hole with each attempt. This is not the fault of the people seeking an honest answer from her.
Martha Duchild
So contact them (Duncan, Miquel, Knarr and Wallach), not me.
Mr. Trueblood, I wasn't the one who asked the question regarding the firefighter union. You did! You are the one who needs to know the answer, not me!
And further, I don't care what is done or not done regarding the decension of any board member regarding the objection of Mosby as does 5:21 pm 7/1. Some people will never let this rest and I think if it wasn't that, it would be something else to bitch about.
However, I also feel that the mayor should have been present in making their decision on Mosby, and they should have waited until he was present to do it.
This obviously cannot be undone but seems to still be a big issue on the blog. However, the reasoning and the answers will never be on the blog. Because the blog has already tried the famous four and it isn't going to matter what Duncan or the others say.
Sooner or later however, the grease always floats to the top and in time people always show their true colors. So in time things will be brought out; until then everything is mere speculation.
"I don't care what is done or not done regarding the decension of any board member regarding the objection of Mosby as does 5:21 pm."
So do you care if a vote for a CID could be tempered by a relationship?
Do you really believe if the Mayor had been there, the vote would have been different?
You and I both know it would not have been, so why do you keep bringing up an issue that had zero impact on the outcome?
all of this nonsense has zero impact on the outcome. It happened quite a while, and nothing is going to change the outcome. Yet we still bang heads against walls over this non-issue. And I agree. If the mayor wanted this man for his that post, he should have been there, if for no other reason than to show support for his choice and verbally advocate for him. It bothers me that he didn't see fit to attend a meeting where his first big decision was being introduced.
8:12 AM, July 06, 2011,
It bothers me that you will not tell us if you think the out come of the vote would have been different if he had been there?
8:12 AM July 6
I have personal experience with having a mayor present and advocating for me during the BOA meeting at which my appointment (to the civil service board in my case) was considered.
As Mr. Trueblood can attest, Mayor Robinson's presence and support had no impact. My appointment was rejected.
As Mr. Trueblood also knows, I harbor no ill will against him for his decision to vote against my appointment; in fact, we both worked together on Mayor Schlink's campaign.
Martha Duchild
9:09 - First of all, I do agree on some points that have been made under this comment. But I am not going to blame the mayor for being excused from the BOA meeting re: Mosby. He trusted this would be taken care of.
You have to consider that his life is not one dimensional and it brings with it other important commitments, like our lives do! I am sure that he felt this issue would have been carried out without hesitation. So give him a break and stop playing the blame game. I think he is trying and working hard for Crestwood.
However, getting back to Mimi Duncan, and the chain of events at that particular board meeting does not mean that Mimi Duncan needs to answer any or all questions on this blog. She is not on trial and has a right to "remain silent". But I am trying to see both sides of this issue.
Duncan and the others have already been "black balled" on this blog and in the newspaper. Further, you are asking these questions because you consider her and the other 3 as traitors. Because of this, the board of aldermen has been totally split in half. And now you want Duncan & Company to answer questions on the very blog that has described them as The Four Horsemen of the Ridiculous? Darn if I'd do it!
Most importantly...
If you still have problems with Duncan and the others on this subject or any other subject, when it is the audience' turn to speak at the next board meeting, DO IT! But Remember Duncan knows who her enemies are. And if you are one of them, there will be no answers to any issue that will satisfy you except, her resignation.
Tom has already wanted it and so do many of the bloggers. So, why ask for answers on anything when you want her to resign? No need for her to try to redeem herself by answering questions! You want her gone. Adios Amigo!
No I do not want Alderman Duncan gone. I just want to find out what, if any, her relationship is with any employees of Pulaski Bank due to her prior long service in the banking industry, before she votes on the CID.
Is that asking too much?
Tim, I agree with you - that is not asking too much at all and I understand it perfectly. I don't know why she hasn't answered your question specifically and those from other people too. And I wasn't trying to point the finger at you.
I can only give my view on this, and that is all. I have never spoke to her. But I have read this blog and read comments from her naysayers and negatives to form an opinion.
I think she feels if she did answer any question from you or anybody else, it would be meaningless. She doesn't know who would listen or who would not listen to her answer. Everyone has to be suspect when she hears accusations made about her regarding the Mosby issue. Therefore, maybe she doesn't feel comfortable answering any questions while standing in "merky waters".
Tim, your question is very relevant but your motives are suspicious. Had Mosby been appointed, the opposition (of which you are one) to the CID would win. And now because of what transpired, your side may have lost another vote. So, I really don't know what to think anymore.
Let's just say, I am waiting to see more of the board of aldermen, and how they interact with one another. The CID is just one issue. I am not going to base my opinion of Duncan or anyone right now on one issue.
If a person wants to determine the honesty and integrity of anyone, they need to watch and see that person for a long time or else it is unfair.
Duncan and the others haven't even got their feet warm yet being members of the board of aldermen.
But they are called The Four Horsemen of the Ridiculous. I just feel that is wrong.
I am sorry if I gave you the wrong idea. Your question is one I would like to hear the answer to as well. But I won't hold my breath.
Well lets look at the problem from a different perspective for a change.
The CID requested by Pulaski Bank will do nothing at all for Crestwood, it will take Pulaski bank off the hook for their bad business decision!
Two things are very relevant to this request and they are that the crossover connection between that property and the Schnucks lot is very dead in the water (won't happen.)
Second the TAX Rate at that center is 9.42% and as such not going to attract anyone shopper wise when they can spend less for the same products elsewhere!
Add those two items to the fact that Pulaski Bank is NOT going to put retail in that center but rather the Fifth Third Bank and you will quickly realize that this is insane to say the least!
As you may be aware Banks pay virtually no tax back to the City other than a business license and property tax, so why are we bailing out the people with the money (Pulaski Bank) for fifteen to twenty years of a higher tax rate at what is now a struggling shopping center?
Now thats why were interested in who may or may not have any connection to the Bank (Ms. Duncan told me she has none) or it's Representatives, and I think its something we ALL should be asking, not to mention WHY this is even on the table to begin with!
Tom Ford
4:19 Thanks Tom!
"Duncan and the others haven't even got their feet warm yet being members of the board of aldermen."
I disagree, no one has been on the BOA for less than yr except Knarr, who served around 10 months I beleive.
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your statement.
6:01 pm OK then you disagree! Does that mean you think Duncan has had enough time to be an alderman and therefore you feel you can judge her as pitiful like some on this blog have done?
If that is not the case, what point are you trying to make with your disagreement? Like others on this blog, should she resign? Should she....do what in your opinion?
5:21 July 1st says enough of this. Let the Mosby issue die! Tom makes a good point in his comment about the CID!
So 6:01 I am interested in what else you disagree about and I do respectfully ask.
6:53 PM Blogger: Forget about "Mosby" that is not the issue!How these four Alderman got to that same conclusion is the issue.
The next issue will be the CID! If these four vote in lockstep (as they have in the past) for the CID we will know the fix is defiantly in, and alive and well in Crestwood!
May I remind all that Chicago and Crestwood both start with a "C," but that should be where it ends, not with back room deals and cronyism!
Tom Ford
Hey Tom and Tim, how would you two feel if there was ever two aldermen who served on the BOA together at he same time that were co-workers? Past, present, future? John, I would like your opinion on this one too.
"Does that mean you think Duncan has had enough time to be an alderman and therefore you feel you can judge her?"
Yes I do, as she accepted the job and of she cant stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. Further if you feel she needs more time to learn her job, maybe you should tell her to resign as Board President. Or is that different?
"Does that mean you think Duncan has had enough time to be an alderman..."
She has been in office for more than a year. Since a term is three years, she should have plenty of experience to do the job properly.
"...if there was ever two aldermen who served on the BOA together at he same time that were co-workers?"
We currently DO have two members of the BOA who work for the same company. In different departments I believe. I see nothing wrong in that case.
The only situation where that would be a problem would be if the company did, or would do business with the City. And even in that case an alderman should recuse themselves from voting on that issue. I don't believe that the charter disqualifies a person from serving for that reason.
The only problem I can see is that if two members recused themselves, and any other members were absent, that would mean there were only five or less members voting. In that narrow case I think the vote should be put off until all six of the other menbers were present.
By the way my comment above also applies if the alderman was a former employee of the City. And if an alderman served with any employees on any boards, committees, volunteer positions, or even close personal friends, or family members who stand to make a profit from a specific vote. In all those cases, the alderman should recuse themselves from voting on that specific item.
10:29 PM Blogger: Sooner or later we will have two Alderman who work for the same company, (it's happened already as John said.)
That said IF they were to vote on a project that could or would benefit their personal, or professional relationship with any group, organization or firm I might have a problem.
You see it's not who they work for at all, it's what relationship they, or their firm they work for have to a vote before them. In the case where we had two at the same time they did not vote on any project that would have come close to being questionable, nor do I believe they would have.
That is why the refusal to seat Mr. Mosby was such a travesty, and why the four that did it are catching all this flack. Please remember that President Nixon's cover up was his undoing, not the actual Watergate burglary.
Tom Ford
Anonymous 10:29 PM, July 06, 2011
Sorry but it has been my long standing policy to NOT answer questions from "Anonymous" posters.
While I am very interested in your question, I will not answer. I hope you do not take this personal.
10:47 7/6 "Maybe I should ask Duncan to resign"?
I don't want her to resign as I feel I don't have enough evidence that she, for sure, did anything to deserve it.
I am not one to give in to snap decisions. I feel she and others, if they are going to be problematic will show it as time goes on.
I want Jeff to be able to unify the board and hopefully he can do that.
Like Martha said, they will not always agree on everything but that doesn't mean they can not work together as a unified board.
Jeff is a smart young man and he knows how to do his job. So, I am leaving this alone. I refuse to see our board of aldermen denounced, and my faith is still in all our leaders. And that means all 8 of them. They are human just like you and I, and some things were not to our liking but I refuse to go as far as wanting anyone to resign. I want everyone to get along.
If we could just do that, we will have more going for us than what has occurred in the past.
Think about it!
9:52 AM, July 07, 2011 Anonymous,
If your going to disagree with me at least quote me correctly.
I did not say for her (Duncan) to resign as an ALDERMAN, here is my post again for your reading and comprehension.
"Further if you feel she needs more time to learn her job, maybe you should tell her to resign as Board President."
See?
1:59 Well see, now you're getting testy. Yes, I get it and I saw it and I read it!!!! But let me be more specific. If you think Duncan is going to resign from President of the Board of Aldermen and still want to sit on the dais as an alderman, I totally disagree. Oh I Mean I respectfully disagree.
Being made President of the Board of Aldermen in my mind was given to her and is a special job. For her to resign as it's president would be like having "failure" stamped on her forehead so if she deems it necessary to step down from that, doesn't lead a person to believe she would want to serve on this board of aldermen.
Whoever you are, I am not going to match wits with you on this subject. You, obviously, are one of those smug wiseguys that are so far above everybody else, you can't give a person an ounce of credit. I said what I said and I need not go into this or any other subject with you, under any circumstances. Sorry I didn't dot my I's and cross my T's. Some of us get in a hurry and are not specific enough for the upper crust in Crestwood as you seem to be. I am just saying.....
So we agree to disagree.
I could see where two board members being co-workers wouldn't be a problem as long as one wasn't the other persons supervisor. If you had that situation I could see major ethical problems.
6:52 PM, July 07, 2011'
Whats smug about wanting to be quoted correctly? You suggested we give the Alderman more time to learn her job, what I was saying was if that was the case, maybe she wasn't qualified to be President of the BOA.
Seems to me that you cant have it both ways. Either she needs more time to learn her job or she doesn't.
Stop with the smoke and mirrors.
Duncan is fiscal liberal taking some one elses money and transfering to another entity.
I for one do not like it. AFter 70 plus years of this type of approach we still have the poor, homeless, staving etc individuals. The program has been a miserable failure and the Crestwood politicians will have their hands out again asking for more.
Duncan, Beezley, Foote, Pickle leave the tax payer out of the failed venture and see if it stands on its own.
Focus on a vision for the city.
I am not talking about a fleet of shiny new dump trucks and polioe cars. What do you want Crestwood to be now that we are not and will not be for the forseable future a shopping meca?
Lets create a value that others want to visit. A reason to come to Crestwood.
Where is our economic development commission?
what a weak ineffective committee that is?
We are going no where fast as long as we have those old folks Beezley, Foote, Pickle and Duncan running things.
You are the one with the smoke and mirrors and you know it. Funny that you would name the same four in your comment as the few bloggers we have heard from before. Over and over again. Who are you trying to fool with your rehtoric?
You try to disguise yourself but you give your real identity away. You speak and talk just like the other bloggers have done - because you are not a new blogger, but want us to think you are.
Further you talk of liberals and call Duncan a liberal! How do you know if she is or isn't? Even more telling is that you point the finger at the same four as the very people do on this blog.
To single out those four tells me you are an old blogger who somehow is trying to make it sound like you are someone new. You speak about the same things and there are too many similarities as the other bloggers.
There are only a handful of you who really love to carry on about these four individuals. That in itself gives you away. Remember - There are four members of the board of aldermen but they are never mentioned. I guess it's because they are all perfect!!!!!
Almost all the comments are tied up with the same four horsemen of the ridiculous - now that is strange. Any time anyone says anything, most of the time they have to hammer on these four people.
You all keep dividing this board or seem to by the comments. So in essence, when someone asks how Crestwood is doing since the previous mayor is gone - we can all say in unison "same manure, different players".
Nothing is new; just the SOS.
3:56 PM Blogger: Funny I write this Blog and i don't recognize the "style" you seem to see here.
I do know one thing though, none of the Alderman mentioned by this Blogger has ever defended themselves here or in the Papers.
If they are so wonderful, please tell them to just explain their actions to the constituents for once and for all!
You seem to think that they are all mutes, or above all of us when it comes to speaking for themselves, right?
Well on July 24, 2011 at the BOA were going to ask that each of these Representatives tell us why they can't answer e-mails directed to them by citizens.
Maybe then we can get the truth,naw, but they will either answer or look like what they really are, third rate ward healers!!
Tom Ford
I think that is a great idea Tom. You are allowed to ask questions at the board meetings so I think it would be appropriate.
But if you choose to call them names on this thread, which you have, they may feel you wouldn't believe their answers. It's hard to give a person a chance, when you dislike them as much as you do. But all you can do is try.
"It's hard to give a person a chance, when you dislike them as much as you do." And if anyone knows this to be a fact it is you Sandy.
5;27 PM Blogger: Well Blogger's have called me much worse and will in the future I assure you.
That said if your "thinned skinned," take it personally, or get your feelings hurt, Politics is no place for you now is it.
They bought their ticket when they won the election, and now it's time to pony up and answer ALL questions from friend or foe.
Tom Ford
I never stated I was a new blogger. Where did you read that? More distactions.
You forgot the rest of the statement:
Duncan, Beezley, Foote, Pickle leave the tax payer out of the failed venture and see if it stands on its own.
Focus on a vision for the city.
I am not talking about a fleet of shiny new dump trucks and polioe cars. What do you want Crestwood to be now that we are not and will not be for the forseable future a shopping meca?
Lets create a value that others want to visit. A reason to come to Crestwood.
Where is our economic development commission?
what a weak ineffective committee that is?
We are going no where fast as long as we have those old folks Beezley, Foote, Pickle and Duncan running things.
What say you now?
"Lets create a value that others want to visit. A reason to come to Crestwood."
I bet a life sized bronze statue of former Mayor Robinson on the parking lot of the "new, improved Creston Center" would bring them in droves.
5:38 7/13 Sorry that you feel you have the claravoyence to put a name to a comment. It must be wonderful. Now if you could just turn your attention to the big heading on this blog/ hread, maybe you can also tell us how your comment relates to it.
Then if you really get the assistance from the Man Upstairs, maybe you can tell us how Crestwood is going to get out of the mess it is in.
10:49 PM rude, rude, rude - shame on you. The man is no longer around but you still love making jokes!
8:34 7/13 What I say to you now is nothing/nada.
We are poles apart in our thinking, and there is nothing left to say unless you want to keep arguing.
If you want to keep debating it, we can fill this blog up with comments.
This heading is about Mimi Duncan and her letter to the editor. The letter has been chewed up and spit out and her actions will be held against her forever. Plus the blog has its crosshairs on the other three also.
Tom said politics is not for the thin-skinned and I guess that is me.
Roy is not longer around, you don't mean he has gone to get his reward do you? Or do you mean he is no longer around but down on his farm?
"...on July 24, 2011 at the BOA"
TOM,
I believe the BOA Meeting is scheduled for July 26.
I plan to be there also. It should be interesting.
9:51 July 14th - Why in the "Sam Hill" do you care where Roy is now!!! What difference does it make to you or anyone. It is pure insanity that keeps people like you making snid remarks about a man who was voted down. Isn't enough for you that he is no longer around.
You had best get on with your life and look forward instead of backwards or you might start driving your car down the street the wrong way as you are really disconnected from reality. You are really crazy-insane!
You and others have beaten this Roy issue to the ground. There is no more Roy! Where he is or what he does is now, None Of Your Dang Business.
Have a bad day at work today?
No but I think you did! Heavens, it's after 1 AM - where were you all night in some bar drinking? People get tired of blog comments that are no longer necessary.
Nighty Night. Sleep it off, maybe you will feel better by daylight.
Post a Comment
<< Home